I really dig the response to this article. I use the "as a" rhetoric all the time when the Times does articles on transgender people. I actually hate having to do it.
When people us "as a" it has several purposes I think.
1. To claim victimhood status and consequently moral superiority and legitimacy.
2. As a kind of protection against trolls. "If I'm a trans-woman then what I say cannot be questioned by any other other than a bigot."
3. As an apology (if you are white, and I'm white so I get to be an oppressor and a victim at the same time, yay!)
4. As a claim of primacy. "What I say must be heard first and I preferably must lead or direct any group that talks about transgender issues"
5. To claim representation of a group as whole. This is essentially indicating that I have a right to speak for transgender people, which in the end is me projecting my personal experiences on several million people.
Personally, I'm not a victim. Transgender people aren't all victims who deserve pity/help/affirmative action. I made six figures last year, own a house and a $10,000 hot tub. My wife is transgender and is a master electrician with a transgender apprentice. We don't have kids and spent the whole month of Jan. in Hawaii.
I'm also not just transgender. I'm a cannabis consultant. I went to MIT. I like gold prospecting. I own 10 guns. I hate cities. My identity is the intersection of an infinite number of lines, and is unique to me and only me.
24
Thank you for the reminder that we only speak for ourselves, in the end.
10
Oh thank god, somebody with a megaphone finally wrote this, and in the pages of the NYT no less. "As a": woman, socialist, feminist, lesbian, medicare-eligible white person, I for one deeply appreciate the shove for people to go beyond and below those surface labels. It is seriously depressing that progressive insights, values, and ideas have devolved to a laundry list of identities. And to say this is not to repudiate those identities per se, it is simply to recognize that identity politics is a subset of something broader and deeper, and in the end, something universal, rather than divisive.
Thanks, Mr. Appiah. Please hang in there on this.
15
What person doesn't expect to be regarded as "speaking for myself" whenever they are speaking?
People identify themselves as they believe is relevant to the conversation. If I'm talking about pasta, I'm probably not going to identify myself as a white male, but I might identify myself as someone of an age to remember when Italian cuisine went from "wog food" to trendy in Australia.
You might be able to infer things from how a person identifies themself if you think that qualification is irrelevant to the discussion, as when a white man identifies himself as such while having a discussion about rap music. Or maybe not - it's up to you.
Deconstruction isn't some profound insight into the nature of humanity, it's just a word to describe how we understand language, with all the nuances and inflexive pronunciation that can add to or detract from the listener's understanding of what is being said.
What is important from the speaker's perspective is that they effectively enunciate and convey the meaning they intend. Given the realities of modern life, you can't ever really know the extent to which any listener has correctly understood what you have said.
But you can test that understanding by listening as much as you talk. Communication ought to be a two-way process if only to allow people to confirm that what they are saying is conveying the meaning they intend. Let's hope Mr Appiah takes the time to read all of the comments that his column attracts - he might learn something.
3
It's been my experience that many people hesitate to reply to a statement or argument until they've put an "identity" (correct or incorrect) on the source. Otherwise, they are silent because they have no idea which cliches and insults to throw at you.
4
I have always understood the "as a" qualifier to indicate a set of prejudices or experiences, usually meant either to betray ignorance or to set up irony. Anyone who suggests to me that he or she represents a whole community, without considerably further credentials, will necessarily be met with severe skepticism.
5
I rarely "identify" in my comments, except in an instance where that identity bears weight: "as a veteran" makes a difference when the discussion is about veterans' care, benefits, etc. It indicates I am a member of a particular group discussing an issue particular to that group. In most discussions, what I am is less important than who I am, so why bring it up?
6
You "totally disagree"? Not even "90% disagree", leaving Kwame Anthony Appiah a meager 10%?
Well, I agree with the author more than 0%. If someone said, "Speaking as an American," I'd at least want to know if they were a Republican or a Democrat, a New York gazillionaire or a homeless Mississippian. "As an American" could even mean "Peruvian" or "Guatemalan," as many people around the world simply say "American" to refer to anyone from North, South or Central America.
If someone ever says, "As a Jewish Californian," I'm going to say, "Are you sure you speak for me?" They might, or they might not.
How disingenuous it is for the NY Times to publish this article. The Times, the publication that views every issue and event through the lens of identity politics. That devotes significant column-inches to the Mandy Patinkin and Scarlett Johanssen casting "controversies". That as recently as last week threw shade on "Mississippi Burning" and "Django Unchained" simply for having been directed by white men. That will probably someday argue that potato chips are racist because they're made from white potatoes and not "potatoes of color".
Let's see the Times report from the perspectives of reality and ALL humanity before it casts stones at others for playing the "as a" game.
20
With the growing evangelical fundamentalist Christian backlash against the LGBT's community's recent victories in its long quest for civil rights, I don't identify myself as a gay man when opining on the phenomenon because I pretend to speak for the gay community.
I speak as a gay man first, because I'm the one in the cross hairs and, secondly, because it wasn't all that long ago that this very publication and others like it wouldn't even stories involving gay people.
I hope that's acceptable to Mr. Appiah, because I do not plan to stop doing it.
5
You complain of people prefacing writing with their bonafides. Yet you end with yours. Hypocritical, much?
3
This headline, while reasonable in its own right, is hilarious to find in a publication where the surest way to get your comment recommended by the editorial staff, or your letter published, is to begin it with the words "As a..."
Sorry, don't want this one to be skipped.
"As an Arab Jew of Hispanic background raised among Orthodox Jews and Italian and Irish Catholics, I would take this headline much more seriously in any other publication. Even if this is oddly the only one I pay a subscription for, in spite of what has been a risible commitment to identity-based arguments."
14
Kwame Appiah's essay is, unintentionally, a brilliant takedown of any political speech given by America Ferrera when she publicly campaigned for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
Whenever she appeared on stage, Ferrera always began with a laundry list of identity stereotypes:
"As a first-generation American, millennial, female, person of color..." or "As a first-generation American millennial woman, raised by a single immigrant mother, and educated in public schools..." Etc. She always recited these identity markers like a practiced Bingo player reciting a string of numbers.
Of course, if you removed these self-proclaimed identity markers by Ferrera, you would find an immensely wealthy Disney child star whose life is a fairy-tale compared to those of the same identity groups working for minimum wage with scant privileges and scant hopes.
I remember one attendee listened to Ferrera's speech and then remarked to a bystander: "Yeah, so what? I'm a first-generation American, millennial, female, person of color too, and I have practically nothing in common with America Ferrera. She uses her identity groups to mask her own privilege. It's insulting."
17
We have chromanones and DNA but some are more interested in skin color, language, political roots that divide. We need to stop asking and keeping data on race, color, creed, etc. and judge people by character. It is really that simple.
7
Excellent essay, Professor Appiah. Someday Americans will understand that the only characteristic that makes people different the world over is their social class - social wealth, and financial wealth. The rest is just made-up junk. An African-American doctor has as many privileges as a white-American one. Operah Winfried has as many privileges as any one with her amount of money.
Starting a sentences with ‘as a’ only means the person is trying to give him/herself credibility, i.e., that person is doubting his/her own beliefs.
7
I am a sometime Trump supporter, which will allow most readers here automatically to discount my views on everything. But for those few remaining in the room, here goes my individual take.
My distrust of identity politics, and the seeming obsession with identity in the academy, is that its embrace seems purely tactical, and not motivated by any genuine intellectual commitment. The profound strength of the original civil rights movement, that permitted it to triumph against all odds over openly racist attitudes and institutions, was its emphasis on the universality of man--that we were all separated by something as trivial as the color of our skin.
Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have passed in a climate where the racial and gender identity of those seeking change was jealously guarded and the views of white males dismissed, a priori? Not a chance.
Despite nominal deference, universality has all but been abandoned. I believe that it was used to serve a purpose when needed; what succeeds now is repeated identification with racial (and gender, and sexual identity, and.....) boundaries and furious assertion of that group's rights and exclusive ability to speak for members of that group. When that no longer avails, we will have something else. However, in the interim, the rules of the game are that whites, and particularly white males, are not to be permitted to play.
Trump supporters are hardly whining; they're simply saying "good luck with that, pal".
15
@Wine Country Dude Then why support someone who is a liar, a cheat, and appeals to peoples worst instincts and will not really do anything substantial for anyone except for his elitist friends and never had any intent to?????
3
Any label makes me both more than I am and less than I am.
4
When people begin with their apparent bio. information, I'm expecting a very biased point of view and no apology for it. If they want an unexpected reaction, their story will be the opposite of your bias. Since it is just used to get your attention, we should ignore the preface and politely listen or turn away.
1
Something tells me the Times would not have published this column if it were written by a straight, white, wealthy guy (not that such a person would, in this day and age, have the guts to write it!). Until we solve THAT problem, we are nowhere. Yes, definitely let's stop the "speaking as a" pretension, but we need to go further, and let everyone participate in every conversation.
10
The personal social ID is like a conjoined twin. It always will play a part in defining who we are. You cannot completely dismiss it and say it has no place. You cannot deny it, it's part of what makes you who you are. You can tone down the overuse of it, but you cannot entirely disconnect for the experience that made you who you are as an individual. To dismiss it entirely is to refuse to validate part of what made the person.
If there is one group IN THE US that really should be able to preface "as a" it would be Native Americans. Until Standing Rock they were invisible in policy making and the media, and i am afraid, they have been relegated there again.
I was so galled by one of Obama's projects for young minority men - aimed at blacks and Latinos - no mention of Native Americans who by every objective measure are at the bottom of the ladder - so low that they aren't even included in the statistics. (See: hate crimes etc)
Haven't even seen one mention of them here.... But then again, I don't get the impression that most of them (boy, talk about speaking with a broad brush) are interested in shutting you down when you speak - then again, a siginificant number of them are too busy just trying to stay alive. much less be treated with deference.
3
Thank you. Just “Thanks”.
2
I'm not sure how often I use the "as a..." construction, but I when I hear it, I think of it as a short-hand for a set of experiences the speaker uses to give context to what follows. It acknowledges that "where you stand depends on where you sit." I don't interpret it a meaning the speaker purports to represent his / her group. Some experiences will never be shared (men will never give birth), but as other respondents have said, to the extent that we can treat each other equally, we won't need to give so much context.
In the seventies, when women were just entering the workforce, I was asked from time to time what women thought about some subject. What a ridiculous question! I'm sure women were on all sides of any question you could name. I resented being expected NOT to speak for myself. I observed then that any subjugated group is first expected to be silent; then, as a few members join the dominant class, they are expected to speak for their group; finally, when their group has been accepted, they are allowed to be their idiosyncratic, true selves. Thus, I was thrilled in the eighties to meet a black man who studied marmots (marmots!). Small evidence that maybe we are creeping toward a more egalitarian world. But as recent events have revealed, we have so much work to do.
3
@Jessica - a man will never give birth, but I trusted my male ob/gyn with my life and those of my babies during each delivery. And truthfully, in that particular context, have found that the outsider to the experience (the man) was reverent, gentle, and solicitous of the awesome nature of birth. Much more so than my female ob/gyn.
4
⸮ As a Bay Area resident...I’ve found this qualifier used much more commonly as a means of communicating irony. “As a white man living in the city, I am upset by the loss of diversity in our residents.” Or “As a California boy I find the idea of real winters romantic.” I don’t doubt the historical employment of the phrase was meant to add authority to and preempt questions of one’s statement but I find it’s use today to have the opposite intent. When I hear most people preface a statement with “As a...” it is meant to recognize and allow for the fraught nature of a white man or a California boy expressing this idea.
The unique richness of human minds are the most awesome thing known in the universe and is what makes the person. . The rest is just ape. This person craves and enjoys contact with other persons. When someone speaks “as a” category, then I know that is not what is about to happen, I lose interest, my mind wanders and I walk away unaffected. I converse with people, not identities.
Or, maybe--and I don't claim this is--as identity is so dispersed today, the "as a " tendency is a way to keep things from falling apart, to keep the lifejacket's overwrought seams from being overtaken and burst by the steady tide of dispersion. We can't stop the ethnically divided lunch tables, but we can improve the dialogue between them. An "as a" dialogue is wanting and wants "as a" ears.
Very happy that one of the leading intellectual lights of these pages has spoken out against the newspaper's conventional wisdom that all is right with identity politics.
Quite naturally, given his place in the academy -- and at the Gray Lady -- even someone with Mr. Appiah's credentials must be extremely cautious in his criticism.
I would be much happier if he mentioned what I believe to be the worst aspect of identity politics -- the withholding of compassion for the group one considers to be their victimizers.
Thus, we have Trump voters folks saying "O.K." to forced family separations by ICE, while activists on the left cry for those shot by police, while ignoring the many more innocent victims shot by violent criminals.
4
I first thought, "At last. Something refuting the (il)liberal left and right fixation on identity politics."
Then I read and it was just more obfuscation, "intersectionality," this and that theories, and the brilliant conclusion that within each category we may choose to identify with, there are many variations.
Holy DOH.
1
Rationality means the application of basic math as not only method but also model and metaphor for ordering, bossing around, life, reality. The particulars of your identity do not matter to such basic math truths as the Pythagorean theorem, or that 2 + 2 = 4. Even if we change cultural peculiarities, such as using a different alphabet for the theorem, or not using a base 10 number system for the addition, then nonetheless there is a "core" truth there unchanging.
What about our "inner" situations?
Take xenophobia: it's probably natural, regardless of what we want — a drive just as innate as the drive to copulate, or, for males, to pee in the woods or open air (a very old means to alert competitors to one's presence). And as xenophobia in so many versions is so common, and not only among our species, it has be considered that xenophobia evolved as did other behavior patterns largely due to environmental pressures and likely is more advantageous than its absence. That it's an evolved advantageous inclination. So is it rational?
Culture however is nature's way of providing a wiggle room around innate drives, to make limited encumbrances, changes, transformations etc. around the core truth, the thing itself. It's probably a fool's errant to seek to eliminate, rip out by the roots, rather than to transform, elevate.
But where am I going with this? Into the woods?
Identity politics?...I believe Putin coined the term.
1
I give my opinion and therefore I am. Although a former formal student of philosophy who still loves active discussions, I have to say I found your column to be more affectatious than interesting as if you were busy trying to convince us that you are indeed a 'social animal'.
I think it goes back to people's intent when they name their heritage/ group/ clique. I appreciate it when they share a bit of their backstory to explain a thought or opinion.
Other times, I see people do this to silence and denigrate me. To these individuals, I ask them to please help me to understand.
1
Down with identifying with groups. Up with individuality.
Equal rights for all is a simpler and better concept. Easy to deploy and underwritten in our constitution, lets go back to that and leave the complicated playing field of identity politics.
5
Instead of limiting ones views and opinions to ones personal identity people ought to consider being informed and thinking.
2
Julien Benda did not mince words when he wrote about the politics of “hate” and more in 1927.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julien_Benda
The "treason" of which Julien Benda writes is the betrayal by the intellectuals of their unique vocation. He criticizes European intellectuals for allowing political commitment to insinuate itself into their understanding of the intellectual vocation, ushering the world into "the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds." From the savage flowering of ethnic and religious hatreds in the Middle East and throughout Europe today to the mendacious demand for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses everywhere in the West, the treason of the intellectuals continues to play out its unedifying drama.
PS: thank you professor Norman Finkelstein for having me read this.
2
As a white, Jewish, married, father of 4, Democrat leaning, baby boomer, northern New Jersey resident, I wholeheartedly agree with your article.
4
All politics are about identity.
1
@JBC - What exactly does that mean?
4
As a pending former Earthling, I love writing comments that make me sound cooler than I ever was, you know?
2
There is no need to preface one's thoughts, "as an a, b, c, person, I believe..."
I agree, just express them. The funny thing about it is that if one's opinions don't coincide with mainstream views of what one should be, others are taken aback.
"But you don't fit into my prescribed boxes!" Or "you think x, y, z, so you must be a, b, c."
Just intellectual laziness and an incessant need to categorize. Some people need boxes to feel comfortable, and especially in a time of great polarization. Without boxes they don't know who is in the tribe and who isn't. Ridiculous.
1
As a black woman, I vote Democratic. That said, I don't mean to imply that all black women should do so or actually do so. It just means that, given what the Democratic Party stands for, they got my back.
3
The privileging of personal experience over knowledge and intelligence is at the root of many social problems in the US. Trump’s rise to power has empowered anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism that iare now infecting his opponents. Just because you have an autistic child does not mean you are right in claiming that vaccines cause autism. Just because you are African-American does not mean that you understand the complex historical, social and economic roots of racism. And how about the fact that people with similar personal experiences can reach totally opposite conclusions? There are anti-choice women and pro-Trump blacks. What proponents of identity politics are saying is that their ignorance is better than your knowledge just because of who they are.
5
Prof. Appiah,
Could you please write another essay about a slightly different topic? It’s one that I’ve seen a lot since the ’16 election, and I find it troubling- The Manichean view of human nature.
Specifically, I frequently see the accusation of racism framed in absolute terms- “You’re a racist.” “I am not.” “You are too.” It seems to me that racism is not a binary variable. You could assign a scale to it from 0 to 100, with perhaps a zero being a newborn baby, and one hundred being someone really dreadful, like a 17th Century slaver.
It seems to me, that we’re all racist to an extent. We should all try to be close to the zero end of the scale, but our racism varies over time as we age, and also from day to day as we witness and experience events. It’s not a binary either-or, but a state of mind that is in flux, that scales up and down as events unfold. We’re all guilty of racism and racist attitudes at one time or another. And in trying to diminish racism, I don’t find it helpful to think of it in binary terms.
9
Identity politics and the notion that identity as "xyz" equates to authority on all things "xyz" is a ticket to self destruction because it both divides and diverts.
It divides us because it always contains an integral counter-productive insult, i.e., "if you're not an "xyz" your ideas are invalid and your contribution is worthless."
It diverts us from the solution to problems because it distracts from the work of solving problems to focus on where an idea originates rather than on hashing out the best solutions. Identity focus is, in fact, a form of intellectual laziness.
Identity is a consideration, surely. We can't help but recognize and consider sources and motivations. But making identity a primary and inviolable consideration - a prerequisite - is simply stupidity, whether it comes from the political right or left.
2
I am a white male heterosexual hypertensive fly fishing Democratic German-Irish-Italian American blue-eyed retiree and I speak for all of my bretheren.
5
They were probably chic at some point. But the identity wars are now just plain boring.
6
The worst isn't people labelling themselves.. What dismays me is the label others put on me that isn't me at all.
2
It's easy to understand how identity politics has caused the many rifts between us. However, in order to explain one's life experience without reference to race, gender, or sexuality is almost an impossible task. We strive to have open dialog in order to reach others, but there must be some background or insight into our own experience. How does one help another understand where they're coming from when that person has no knowledge of where someone has been?
Labels surely separate people but the aim should always be open dialog on an individual level and sometimes that entails a bit of back story.
2
Often enough, "speaking as a _____" is precisely a way of saying "speaking for myself." It signals one's social position in order to ramify, rather than appeal to, the authority of that position. For example: "Speaking as a straight white man, I may not fully understand the experiences of Black lesbians, so what I think about, say healthcare policy, may be deficient in ways I cannot anticipate." The point is not to speak for others but to not speak for others.
3
@michael k. - I think the problem arises when a white, male, heterosexual who is a healthcare policy expert is not permitted to speak about how healthcare policy might be changed or written because he is not a Black lesbian. You don't have to BE something to be an expert in something.
4
I wonder what happens to America when everyone ends up in a victimized identity group. "As a" 60+ multi-racial Hispanic male with two decades as military dependent and two decades of naval service and currently a military retiree (and who identifies the military as HIS group) I suspect it will not be pretty. Black vs Hispanic vs Asian vs Female vs Gay vs which ever new victims group emerges vs White.......on and on and on. I will not be alive, but it does seem that "balkanization" is not too strong a word.
3
I don't know who Joe is. All I know is that, not only have I never, ever heard anyone preface a remark, insignificant or otherwise, with "As a white man" — I've never heard of anyone who's ever heard of anyone who's said that.
1
"Speaking for myself..." is just as repetitively inane as " In my opinion..." - of course you are and of course it is.
Identity is the bug that tells an individual what he is supposed to believe or "identify" with.
Do you remember Stephen Colbert telling his audience that Trump had fired James Comey? His joyous fans had to be told (in Colbert's view anyhow) that they should be angry, not happy. Or, perhaps, another social media show when the irrepressible Christopher Hitchens flipped off Bill Maher's sycophants?
If you had written this op-ed without attribution it would neither be read nor printed. People read for authority and therefore writers write with it. Identity is the smallest observable piece of that rubric. It is the fault of the listener or the reader which drives the opiner to fear rejection or seek approval.
Identity is what give the NYT or the National Review their readerships.
Tell me who you are that I may judge your thoughts.
2
speaking for myself ... all of you should advocate for yourself rather than for some synthetic group.
Liberty is hijacked when individuals submit themselves to society and insist that their neighbors submit quid pro quo.
2
The problem is not me prefacing a conversation by saying, "as a white man", which would be stating the obvious, so it's not something that I would EVER feel the need to verbalized.
The problem is YOU, saying to me, "as a PRIVILEGED white man", without knowing anything about me, or my family background, other than the color of my skin.
Mr. Appiah, as a man of color, British-born, who identifies himself as be Ghanaian-American, why in God's name would you start out an Op-Ed with a statement that's rarely ever spoken by a white man during the course of everyday conversation? If I said, "hey, that a racist fabrication, a piece of raw meat to trigger my defensiveness", would you recite the silly retort of, "hey, I'm black, therefore I can't be a racist"?
2
We needed this article like 10 years ago!
5
Bravo, Prof. Appiah!
4
Printing one article taking the viewpoint that identity is not simple does not make up for your printing hundreds that focus relentlessly on identity politics.
5
The problem with, should I say intersectionality is problematic. The concept is arbitrarily applied and driven by selective identity politics. The author, here attempts to give us examples to define intersectionality. I find, he falls short in his discussion by empahasising a Black and White,male, female, and class dicotomy. It would more useful to include a broader spectrum of color, gender and class. How has intersectionality affected Asian Indians,East Asians, Africans, Latinx in addition to the nuances of Anglo-Saxon, Mediterian, Middle Eastern in this country? And Muslims and Islam as a race? My dilemma is intersectionality, as defined by scolars who accept Crenshaw's theory, does not apply or have merit with Jewish identity. On the left, Jews are all white with unrestricted infinite privalage, on the Alt-right Jews are a sub-human race, definitely not white. Perhaps, it a Jewish thing only Jews can understand There is a Jewish pespective,non-other than controversial scholar, the very Jewish Alan Dershowitz
He may not be popular with many, a representative of Jews, but I suggest his viewpoint, "As a" Jew, has validity for many who identity as Jews. I refer you to his take on intersectionality. Enjoy.
https://www-washingtonexaminer-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.washington...
1
Terrific essay!
2
The word is disclaimer. In our speech (thought?) controlled world in order to have an opinion you need to disclaim where you're coming from. Especially if its not where you're from.
“As an outsider, what do you think of the human race?”
That was how we joked to each other in the fifth grade. We were pithy and amusing in those days— or was it amusing and pithy?
"As a" gives the reader a bit of perspective about the writer. That's all one should read into that lead in. Anything else is strictly judgemental on the part if the reader.
The author misses the situation in which people say, “Speaking as a ...”. It often occurs after someone makes a statement like, “All [name of group] do this or are like that.” Responding with “I am a [name of group] and I don’t do that,” makes great sense to me.
Maybe Joe developed his annoying verbal tic because his black friends kept badgering him about white privilege. Or maybe he acquired it because every woman he’s met in the last three years wants him to apologize for being of the same sex as Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein. Either way, begin every sentence with a self-deprecating qualifier or not, Joe it seems just can’t please anybody. But maybe, if the criticisms don’t ease off a little, he really will vote Trump in 2020. And that won’t all be Joe’s fault either.
2
I read this and was immediately struck by the notion of over analyzing everything we say and write that has been become standard practice in today's world instant internet feedback and Donald Trump lying.
So, for those of us who still crave to be honestly understood we add self identifying information..i.e. "as a 66 year old retired, reformed Jew living in all white Portland, from a middle class family, that grew up in the post war, 50 and 60's, in a suburb with no people of color, I feel like this or that"
Um..you kind of have to these days...
1
Bravo to the NYT for having the courage to run this piece. The “as a” phenomenon is divisive. We’re all humans, period. Can’t we all work towards finding that which brings us together?
6
@SW running a piece by this author Ian to brave - he’s brilliantly but incidentally checks a lot of boxes - mixed British and African ancestry, academic - what would have been brave would have been asking Tom Friedman or Ben Shapiro to write it.
3
Amen!!
A woman introduced herself to me as "Lesbian Armenian American Identified" at a business function several years ago. I replied, "I'm asparagus." She freaked out.
I love asparagus. I figured it was just as valid an identification to me as anything else.
Above all else, we are all one thing -- human.
5
Sir,
That’s the pure truth.
It is incredibly stupid and counterproductive to fully identify self with the dozens and hundreds of millions other people you have nothing in common but a color of your skin.
The very essence of racism, nationalism, sectarianism or chauvinism is to corral a huge number of individuals into an allegedly cohesive group based on a single irrelevant trait.
Why should your skin be more important than other irrelevant characteristics like a length of your hair, a color of your eyes or your height?
Dividing the people based upon their race, gender, nationality, religion, class, ethnicity, sect or sexuality does not protect them at all but simply separate and preps them for the conflict in near or more distant future.
Any division will push you sooner or later into the bloodsheds. That’s why the humanity went through the endless religious, nationalistic, racial or ethnic wars.
The only truly important human traits are our character and morality…
4
Times readers need permission to express their thoughts? Pathetic.
I'll vote for the non-PC candidate again in 2020 because, unlike Coastal Elites, I don't believe in Thoughtcrime.
6
Precisely! If we are to ever achieve a gender and race neutral society, we need to STOP with the "first female transgendered" this or "the only black" that. On the other side, why oh why does everyone who was a Navy SEAL need to be identified as such, even if they are opening a flower shop??
3
Criticizes "as a ...", but uses a white male as his exemplar? Give me a break. Too politically incorrect, and too politically beholden to left-wing orthodoxy, to make an example of those who, by a wide margin, use this convention: blacks, gays, and women.
3
"That’s why Kimberlé Crenshaw, a feminist legal theorist and civil-rights activist, introduced the notion of intersectionality, which stresses the complexity with which different forms of subordination relate to one another. " This is individualism carried to its extreme point of irrationality. We need to go back to just being human. Education rather than ideology would also help.
3
As a white law-degreed heterosexual married white Jewish female Trump supporter, I have to agree with this piece.
4
As a straight, white, male I assume I have to preface because I'm the ultimate oppressor and cause of virtually all the worlds problems. Anything I say is to be discounted because of the slaves I keep in the basement and the women I must, by my privledged position, treat dismissively. It doesn't matter that I pay the top tax rate, voted for BHO (even though he had few, if any, qualifications to be president, but we had to try something new) and am open to most of the "progressive" agenda. I oppose the lefts near open borders platform on environmental grounds (the numbers are clear for all to see) but that makes me a xenophobic racist regardless of the facts because anything that gets rid of the evil white majority, is on its face, good. The lefts obsession with making race and sex (or sexual orientation) the cornerstone of any discussion on any subject makes it tough for some of us to be enthusiastic team players.
7
I, for one, no longer recognize “groups” but only individuals. Pick any “group” you want (let’s say white men here)and you’ll find that they are tall, short, fat, skinny, smart, stupid, athletic, couch potato, brilliant musicians, tone deaf and all combinations of these traits and myriads of others. Even identical twins raised in the same household can turn out to be vastly different people. It has been said that no two people are the same. And often they are completely opposite. We have white men who voter for Trump and white men who voted for Clinton. You can’t be more diverse than that. Nope, I deal with people strictly as individuals. We’d be far better off if we recognized the fallacy of so called “groups.”
4
Sometimes people say “as a white man” to prevent others from being offended by perceived racism. Of course a white man can be empathetic/informed/witness to a black man’s life, but you can’t expect a white man to understand everything - he can’t can vicariously live through a black man while simultaneously living his experience as a white man. A white man may have certain opinions on a subject, let’s say incarceration, but understands that he does not have the life experience of a black man and a black man may think his comments naive. So, “as a white man” could be seen as a sort of apology in some instances. “I’m sorry, please don’t call me racist bc of my opinion, I’m just a stupid white man.”
1
@Emma - that is exactly the problem! "Offended by perceived racism." People of color need to stop be offended by perceived racism and worry about the real thing. I have been in numerous situations where very liberal, educated, multicultural groups of people nitpick each other to close to death about virtually NOTHING. It needs to stop.
7
One small correction to this article: gay (actually lesbian) women in South Africa are not merely raped - they are both raped AND murdered. They are treated every bit as brutally as gay men.
2
What??? “Identity” isn’t everything??? OMG!! Does this imply that we don’t need a separate political party for every minuscule group?? That different religions may have some things in common??? Is it theoretically possible that different regions of the country actually share some values??? Can it be that everyone doesn’t get every single thing they want every time?? Could it be that compromise might have some value?? HERESY!!!
5
The author should likely be referred to as "Dr. Appiah" in the byline.
@Da
Dr. Appliah needs to read his own column.
He is writing "as a " professor.
@Dan NYT editors don’t call PhD’s doctor - that is reserved for medical doctors in general. Agree that Professor is appropriate here.
Whats more problematic with "as a" is that it often is a cover for class. In the often necessary recognition of hierarchy and privilege our society, Americans' ability to perceive solidarity and antagonism across class lines is staggeringly poor. In addition, we mis-perceive and mis-recognize ourselves and our class status.
1
This “as a...” group identity framing is chiefly, primarily being done by the interviewer, usually some media personage, not by whomever is being portrayed as representative of an entire class of people, the interviewee. I really doubt that any significant portion of everyday people actually take the audacious leap and boldly assert that they speak for a cultural multitude. Additionally, the saturation of polling in American life, based upon the persistent collecting of people into too neat and tidy human piles, may also be an influence producing this unnuanced, exaggerated lumping together of multi-facited individuals.
I cuts both ways. As a white man do I claim full credit for:
Newton’s, Einstein’s and Darwin’s Theories, the Declaration of Independence, Shakespeare’s writings, Mozart’s concertos, electricity, Plato’s and Descartes’ philosophies, the Moon landings, the computer, democracy, Magellan, airplanes, etc., etc.. ad (nearly) infinitum.
Also, do I admit complete responsibility for:
Chattel slavery, the Holocaust, the Belgian Congo, the KKK, Global Climate Change, both World Wars, Conquistadors, the plastic waste in the Pacific Ocean gyre, the Mafia, Stalin, sexism both individual and institutional, Payday loans, the invention of crystal meth, cigarettes, Reality TV, trailer parks, 4chan, etc., etc.., again ad infinitum.
I’m so confused. So much pride and so much shame. Am I a good person, or bad? Can I not just be me, just a single insignificant hominid, one of ten billion who have walked the surface of this planet?
Thank you, Professor Appiah, for making sense. I feel better now.
9
I totally agree with the author about the need to speak for yourself, and not as a member of any group you identify with. In the age of social media and polarization we are losing sense of self. Why think of yourself as how someone may know you; by race, religion, occupation, nationality, or any other group identification?
Lot of problems, real and imagined, are created because we divide ourselves into groups. Our world world be a happier place if think, speak, and act as individual.
1
Wonderful opinion. There were also some pretty good rebuttals, but (: -)
Most generally, it is critical to speak of your own experience and your own opinions as a human being, not as an instantiation of a homogeneous identity group. We have individual histories, propensities, personalities, ideas.
This diversity is critical to our survival. Otherwise, we are simply monocrops, highly vulnerable to pests.
3
When the concept of a women's march was suggested and shared by someone who was white and female a new leadership team for the march was selected and showcased for its "intersectionality." Puzzling for some but not surprising in looking at policies on some college campuses.
1
While Appiah is correct that we are all individuals, this essay (and presumably his upcoming book) is woefully asociological about the fact that we are simultaneously members of groups and that those group memberships really do influence our experiences substantially. Yes, identities are complicated. Yes, there are black conservatives and Log Cabin Republicans. But there are stereotypes about group identities that really ought to be shattered (anyone surprised that about half of US LGBTQ people identify as some kind of Christian?) and understandings about the social patterns of group identities and social inequality that are simply empirically accurate (Appiah is much more likely than I am to be targeted by police for "driving while black", no matter how much of an individual he actually is, simply because I am white; he is also substantially less likely to be raped than I am simply because he's male). So let's acknowledge that every person is simultaneously an individual, a human being, and a member of many social groups, some voluntary, some not, and let's commit ourselves to the well-being of all people in all three of these aspects of who we are. And we cannot make this commitment to flourishing unless we believe people when they do elect to speak from their devalued identities and not merely from their individual experiences.
3
I love this piece from an author who himself as an interesting “as a.....” that is difficult to put into a single category. My only issue is the increasingly overused “intersectionality”. Why not just say we are all unique individuals with a variety of experiences who make us who we are? But that is quibbling. This op-ed makes a case for humanity and tolerance. It’s all too rare these days from any source.
2
much appreciated. no one speaks 'as an american' more than whitman when he says: i contain multitudes.
5
'Sometimes he’s speaking as an African-American, who, for ancestral reasons, doesn’t see the appeal of camping'.
Wait, what? I thought the thrust of this entire discussion was that you can't speak for 'ancestral reasons', only personal reasons, which are, or may not be, inflected by your own feelings about your 'people's' history, whomever you think they are.
I once blew up at a gay man who was opining on the illegitimacy of Log Cabin Republicans, about the irony of anyone telling anyone else he is, in essence, the wrong kind of queer. But then, I am the wrong kind of every group that superficially includes me; an unrepresentative, stereotype-violating example of every pigeonhole that chance, fate, or inclination has thrust me into, I side with Groucho, who wouldn't join any club that would have him as a member.
3
Agreed that the "as a" format needs to die. You are either commenting on reality or not. There is no evidence that reality changes based on your identity, so any claim you make should be consistent with the general reality we all live in. Claims about some abstract identity-based reality are worthless, and cannot lead to meaningful policy. To make meaningful policy, claims need to be able to be quantified by everyone in society, not just by some members of an ill-defined group. It is the same as saying, "You are ____, you will never understand". Totally worthless.
42
My I.D.;
I am named Mary.
1
As a homo sapien...
2
Yeah but, my nation has a consistent way of reminding me of my identity. Whether it's the North Carolina state trooper who thought my car was stolen when he pulled me over, and upon seeing my O3 military ID, said I was still just a N..... to him. Or, the blue haired retirees who instinctively clutch their purses tightly, when I walk into an elevator in this chapter of my life.
5
People have to be told this? I’ve spent my life (68 years) speaking as a fellow human. It is the relatively recent identity politics, fostered by both sides but perfected by progressives, that has manipulated folks to identify first with s group rather than with Sapiens as a whole. Politicians (and complicit news media including NYT) be damned!
4
I am aware of all my various identities. Irish American, Lapsed Catholic, New Yorker (raised in New Jersey), straight male (I find 'cisgender' demeaning), book nerd, jazz buff. And many others. Take the time to add up all your identities and sub-identities, all the different tribes you've belonged to, you'll find you can fill Yankee stadium with them.
The question is, when push comes to shove, which one will you choose above the others. Which one would you fight for, die for, even kill for?
In a pluralist society, we're not supposed to think about that. But a lot of us are anyway.
I don't think of myself as white, not because I don't understand I can sometimes benefit from being perceived that way (and sometimes not, depends on the nabe), but because it doesn't really mean anything to me.
Being exceptionally pale in complexion didn't help my peasant ancestors much. They were poor and Catholic and largely despised by the people with power. Who were also white. It's understandble that when some of them got here, and found out there was a club they could apply for that would come with certain perks, a lot of them lined up to join.
But I want none of it. You should know where you came from, understand your various identities as well as possible, the the core identity--the one that matters--is you. You are you and that's all you can ever be. And if you have nothing to say as an individual, what can you ever be for your tribe, except cannon fodder?
4
Perhaps a question that needs to be asked is how much is what follows the “as a” phrase is influenced by what comes after “as a...” I often find myself noting when my own nature and reactions differ from what might be expected from one inhabiting the different identity groups to which I belong, and this is a fairly frequent occurrence. When I consciously think of myself as a member of a certain demographic group and decide to respond and speak from that position rather than from my own personal experience, how much is my statement colored by the conscious identity I decide to represent in the moment?
I had an experience this week that was illustrative. At a business meeting, a colleague made a demeaning remark in response to a position I had taken on an issue we were discussing. My reaction to his remark was immediate and deeply personal, based entirely on my own lived experience in a certain realm of my life, and I knew that. Later, as I considered the remark and my reaction, the temptation was to place an interpretation on the interaction that was based on my gender identity and age, even though I knew in my own mind what personal buttons had been pushed by his thoughtless remark. Those buttons may or may not have had anything to do with my gender and could have had nothing to do with my age, but nevertheless the easy take on the encounter was to stereotype it as one based on the difference in our genders and age. I’m still puzzling over this realization.
Sometimes you have to locate yourself in order for what you say to be meaningful. And what you say for yourself can also be problematic because it speaks for the culture, not really for you. For instance: As a young woman in the 60s and 70s, I had to learn to quit referring to myself as a "girl" when I experienced myself as an adult. As an atheist in 2018, I need to eliminate "oh my god" from my vocabulary because it doesn't express ME.
Relentless identification of race and gender identity is fueling division rather than integration. Why make a point of the differences? We are all human. And the harder we strive to highlight differences, the further we move away from the things which bring us together.
7
For a moment, I thought the NYT was having an epiphany, and backing away from its usual embrace of Identity Politics in favor of the more sensible, and decidedly Conservative idea that societal groups aren't monoliths, and that no one can claim to fully represent, or be represented by, a given group identity.
But of course, my hopes for an enlightened criticism of Identity Politics and the suppression of opposing views its sense of entitlement offers to those claiming to belong to "oppressed" entities were overoptimistic. Instead of putting back in their place the very vocal minorities who claim to own victimhood, and hiding behind the cloak of oppression, to shut down any opinion that runs counter to theirs, this piece seems to prefer using the more anecdotal phrase "as a white man" to mildly moderate the excesses of identity politics while hardly venturing outside of the realm of the identity group that arguably least abuses them: white men. Of course, it makes strategic sense not to frontally take on the vocal identity groups, some of whose members make a living cultivating outrage in these pages, but it also makes for a much emptier attempt at criticism.
Given that Identity Politics were likely a main factor in Hillary's losing the 2016 elections, and that they are one of the issues separating enlightened Liberals from the lowbrow Leftists taking over the mainstream, maybe a more honest approach would have been a useful wake-up call to avert future disasters.
3
Provided it is true then a comment from someone who can say, for example, "as a person who has actually been in Jerusalem a few months ago " or "as the mother of an autistic child" or even "as a resident of Miami, Florida " should bear more weight than someone who only knows about these issues from watching television.
For this reason I totally disagree with the writer.
40
I lived in DC for years. Did I have more knowledge of what was going on in politics there than someone who never set foot in DC but read much and watched plenty of TV on political matters (which I did not)? No.
3
@norman0000But aren't those your experiences vs your identity?
3
"as someone who (was) actually in Jerusalem a few months ago" carries very little weight, and the other identifiers merely add a detail but do not apply significant weight to the thesis being offered.
3
Philosophers are, etymologically speaking, are lovers of wisdom.
Thank you, Professor Appiah, for sharing yours so clearly, precisely, logically and thoroughly.
However, what does it say about the times when the most obvious truth -- that we speak only for ourselves -- has to be proved point by point? How far down the proverbial rabbit hole have we gone?
Personally, I identify as a UBO ... an un-identitied breathing object. And that's about as specific/general as I can be without making things up.
Thanks again, for keeping things simple and true.
1
Two points come to mind. The first is Desmond Morris's "The Naked Ape" and similar books popular during my college years. Their point was that it is a form of hubris for humans to imagine they are completely separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. Animals form packs, and primitive societies organize by clans. The urge to form group identities is at least partly genetic, so identity politics cannot simply be theorized into disappearing.
Secondly, our individual identities are formed to a large extent by our group experiences. While we are each unique, depending on context, the "As a ..." introduction is very important. If we are discussing a sport, the "as someone who competed in "x" at a "y" level" definitely adds value to an opinion. If we discuss anti-Semitism, "As a Jew..." is very relevant, and if we discuss immigration, "As a first-generation American ..." again adds value. Context determines whether group experience or individual uniqueness is more relevant.
2
The other side of this is that people who read comments first try to figure out what tribe I am from, and then just start attacking me for being in that tribe rather than for what I am saying.
For instance, if I complain about the environment, they assume I voted for candidate X and am a registered Democrat. Then they start attacking me for that. If they later find out I voted for someone else, they attack me for that instead. But never do they want to actually discuss the environment.
Honestly, the level of discussion is zero on the internet, and I have no influence, so I try to keep my opinions to myself.
3
@No green checkmark
NYT is at least civil and moderated. I have stopped commenting on anything in WaPo - if you don’t be agree with the mob there it is vicious and personal.
1
Was it Freud or Groucho who said, 'Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar'?
Sorry, folks, but sometimes, to me at least, there's a bit too much navel contemplation in this latest meme.
Each of us has at least one identity at any given point in life which he/she should understand and respect as much as possible while hopefully granting others the understanding and respect they deserve as well.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
19
As the grandson of Groucho, I can definitely tell you that it was Freud who said it. But they both loved their cigars.
12
This reminds me of the recent debate in Hollywood that actors like Scarlett Johansson and Matt Bomer (a straight woman and a gay man) shouldn't be allowed to play trans characters. If none of us are allowed to think or act outside our own social lanes, how do you expect people to be empathetic to others causes?
5
I find this article a bit ironic. I most often see people saying, "As a white man..." not because they want to establish their authority, or speak for all white men, but because white people are constantly being asked to "check their privilege" and be "aware" of their racial identity so that they can acknowledge how it informs the way they see the world. Then when a white person does make that acknowledgement of their own identity, they're told not to speak for people aside from themselves. So which is it?
3
The author's point seems to hinge on a mere semantic quibble. "Speaking AS..." does not mean the same thing as "Speaking FOR...," and while some may employ the former phrase when engaging in presumptuous spokesmanship, in my experience (dare I say, as an English teacher who is especially attuned to the nuances of diction?), such conflation isn't all that hard to discern, and to call out if necessary. Whenever I hear or read comments prefaced by "Speaking as a ...," I have no difficulty understanding that as just a shorthand way of expressing the speakers' beliefs that their life experiences and personal background have some relevance to the formation of the ideas or judgments they are about to communicate. When I say, "As a gay man, I am troubled by your claiming to feel that you, as an Upper West Sider, have to keep your support for Donald Trump 'in the closet,'" I am hardly presuming to speak for all gay men, but I feel justified in adducing the widely shared (if not necessarily universal) experience of gay men to object to someone else's co-opting of a painful formative experiences most gay men have in common.
1
"Having an identity doesn’t, by itself, authorize you to speak on behalf of everyone of that identity."
Identity is what makes a person unique. Talking of "everyone of that identity" makes no sense, because nobody shares uniqueness.
Orwell said sloppy language can lead to sloppy politics, and one example is the mass confusion over what a simple word like "identity" means.
2
Share this opinion column with the pollsters, who are paid to tell us all what various scientifically sampled blocks of individuals categorized by age, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, education, income, place of residence, party affiliation and so on "think" about an issue.
Why you would precede your opinion with your identity is beyond me. Will it give you more credibility (because f.e. if you don't identify as a 'liberal' your opinion won't be taken seriously in certain circles; 'conservative republican' in others perhaps)? Is it to apologise before even saying what you think? To reinforce your words? Why?
The fact that someone seems to think people are in need of reassurance that you can actually say what you think without having to 'state your identity' (meaning not your 'self' but to what identifiable larger group you adhere) and all these comments seem to indicate that it is an issue.
I went to a 'free' university (I'd put it under 'liberal' when looking at the US).
Free speech, discussion and individualism (maintaining an independent, inquisitive, critical spirit) were encouraged. Prejudices discouraged and analysed.
Feeling that you need to catalog yourself before feeling free to express your opinion does not seem 'liberal' at all.
30
The take away from this article and some of the comments is that identity is never simple and almost always complex if you look beneath the surface.
If you simply identify yourself by the color of your skin, politics, religion etc then you put up barriers to a greater understanding.
Perhaps that is why identity politics is a failure and will always be.
5
in the US? impossible! In American societ, mone is first and race a close second.
Interesting, when opinion that when a white man makes such a statement it is an "assertion of authority", but when when a minority person establishes his identity, it becomes both "context" and "gospel" on the road to victimhood and emotional blackmail.
And people like Mr Appiah are quick to condemn the very tactics that they use to gain political advantage.
Sorry. I don't buy the double standard that is being offered. Intellectual consistency and integrity will not allow it
2
I've always enjoyed the "Convenience Store Door Dance". There is some magically understood boundary around that space where, almost without exception, people treat each other simply as people - with common courtesy, respect, and sometimes, even friendliness.
The older black lady opens the door for three young guys in military fatigues, and then later, one of them props it open behind him when he notices the Hispanic construction worker has his hands full with water bottles. The teenager with the leather jacket and orange hair actually steps in front of me hold the door, and I didn't think I was THAT old a guy at 65...... but then I see he waits another few seconds for the lady with the hijab. On my way out, I return the favor to a guy in a fancy suit.
Sometimes there's conversation, though seldom more than a simple "Got it" or "Thanks", but I find there's beauty even in that. It's just simply taken for granted that no one seems to see or acknowledge any identity other than that of human being.
7
Identity politics is a sure way to lose political power as it plays right into the hands of the divide-and-conquer strategy of the oppressor.
It is one thing to protest and fight to undo injustice, as in the civil rights movement. It's another thing to shout down political allies because they see more complexity and nuance than your dog-whistle slogans, such as "black lives matter."
If you watched D. L. Hughley's closed-minded rigidity in his conversation with Steven Pinker on Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday, you witnessed the root of the problem.
Hughley is intelligent, compassionate, and a champion of equality and justice. Yet, he came across as a close-minded ignoramus, al la Kanye/Trump, when he harangued Pinker for having the gall to cite the objective truth that black men are better off today than in the 1970s.
Even though Pinker was adamant that he understood there was still racism in the justice system, that there was still systemic oppression against black men, and that there was still much work to do, Hughley was still outraged that Pinker had the gall to suggest that there has been any progress at all.
If you demand that I must reject objectivity to support your movement, you risk using my support.
60
Sunday Morning typo!
Should say: "...you risk LOSING my support."
@Celeste
Wow. I thought the exact same thing! I thought Hughley was excellent until Pinker came on and then I was just confused. Loved listening to Pinker as he challenged my own pre conceived notions.
3
Social Psychology is the Phrenology of the 21st Century.
2
So true! Thank you for writing this.
1
Working-class women do not use expressions like "blithe assumptions of privilege."
2
The article is misguided. People identifying their race, colour and background place their statements and opinions in context. This is why I purposely avoid pseudonyms and false locations when writing comments on the NYT blog.
The result of my transparency was initially to invite opprobrium and verbal abuse, with false accusations of anti-semitism and/or support of the mullahs that would not have been levelled at a hypothetical "Rick from Texas". But I persevered and now have a small group of 'defenders' supporting my views on their own merits.
People should get used to analysing statements, based on their objective validity, without "shooting the messenger".
34
Humbert Humbert was a man who some might have remarked at for the youthful zest of his flaws.
Others may recognize that there is an issue of profound disingenuousness among most people, not the least of which manifests itself in the various ways that stories are conveyed to us.
What part of ‘lollipops’ could possibly be counterproductive to feminism?
A great and much needed essay. Thank you, and to use another cliche, it's time we all tried just thinking for ourselves.
1
There is value in establishing context and perspective when expressing an opinion: "As a lifelong Republican voter" tells us where the speaker is coming from and helps explain his distorted views (just kidding). However context cannot be validation for an argument - reason must stand on its own merits. Too much of political posturing arises out of an insatiable need for affirmation: witness Trump's bottomless hunger/addiction at his rallies. This need is more weakness than evil, but we must force ourselves to see how evil comes of it.
1
To be human is to be biased.
Race underlies the widespread identity politics of today.
2
When people identify themselves as part of a group - a stereotype - they are either asserting knowledge or authority to speak about a subject or they are setting up that identity as a strawman.
I have done it myself. "As a stay at home mother, even I knew that 0% down mortgages with killer balloon payments was a formula for disaster. If I knew it, how did it bypass the Secretary of Treasury?" "As a Catholic, I do not agree with my Bishops..."
The trick is to understand why the person has chosen to assume an identity to make a statement. It automatically identifies the bias of the writer - and I don't mean the prejudice, but the basic ideas that the writer believes - and any clue about what underlying beliefs stoke an argument is useful knowledge.
What is not useful is that we have come to take these self-identities as gospel truth, and applied our own base beliefs to them. It is very possible that my stay at home motherhood did not conform to a typical stereotype, or that my Catholicism doesn't signal the same thing that Samuel Alito's does. But I played on that stereotype to vault my statement into something just short of hyperbole.
If you think when you read, you can take the self-identified identity with a grain of salt.
2
Speaking of my husband, he didn’t come to like kombucha just because it became available on the wide market. He, as a white American child of the age before ten, in Seattle, had already his developed taste for combu ame candies given by his grandfather who lived in Oregon. Speaking for myself, I’m absolutely not a gender switched female or male. Also as a human being for the name of humanity and universal human rights, I tirelessly protest against those who tirelessly entertain themselves by identity gossips and slanders and lies. As a daughter of my mother, I don’t agree on the idea that any adult’s asset is okay to be taken for any child’s caprice. As an ambiguous informant, I will stop here for my life.
I liked this article, but found myself wondering why Professor Appiah chose to begin with the illustrative example of "as a white man" (rather than one of the many groups who deploy the "as a" move against "white privilege" and "male privilege"). Would the argument be different if it had begun not with Joe saying "as a white man" but (say) Fatima saying "as a Muslim woman"? Joe somehow seems a softer, easier target (for this particular argument, not in society at large). But I do like the distinction between "as" and "for", and heartily applaud the advocacy of "Speakng for myself."
4
I've noticed this too. Especially in comments regarding racial issues and topics. I've even felt the urge to do so myself but stopped. I ask myself when I feel like doing this if my opinion is really needed here. Or perhaps this desire is some sort of manifestation of the systemic racism I grew up with and carry around with me like an albatross. I've been trying to cut that bird up like a chicken but it's my task to do this and I don't feel anyone else needs to be involved. I benefit from this most so I certainly don't need thanks for that and I get the feeling that little identifier is a "look at me, what a good person I am for working on this". I want to be a good ally and sometimes that means stepping back and letting other long-silenced voices come to the fore. It's their turn and I'll be here when I'm needed.
Some related thoughts:
First, why is it we think about "I am a ..." more than "I do ..."? Consider the difference between "I am a teacher." and "I teach fifth grade." The first is a fixed identity, the other is an action that can be changed - today I teach fifth grade, tomorrow I might write a story.
And when we're talking about identities we were born with, making them a centerpiece seems to be about claiming credit for things we didn't do. Along the lines of "I'm Italian-American, therefor thank me for discovering the Americas!" or "I'm a woman, so thank me for Sally Ride and Yvonne Brill's contributions to space travel!" Building our personal pride around something we didn't do seems a bit strange.
Finally, there are lots of people I know who have different identities than me. But it would be a terrible disservice to them to think of them as "my ___ friend": They're people with personalities and names, not boxes to be checked on a list, and the fastest way to figure that out is to notice how there are people that share all the checkbox identities and are completely different in behavior, dreams, and goals.
It's one thing to describe yourself as a way of saying "I have particular relevant experience that gives me expertise on this topic". It's a whole other kettle of fish to suggest that those without the same direct personal experiences can't have or express viewpoints.
4
@Working Mama - does personal experience really lend expertise? Maybe personal experience is simply personal experience, and expertise is something else entirely. Because I am a mother three times over, am I an expert on pregnancy, childbirth, childrearing, etc.? Definitely not! I have a wealth of personal experience, and absolutely no expertise.
3
While I agree that "identity" and "labels" are often what divides us, I feel that often the "As a (fill in the blank)" gives those who are considering the opinion a basis and perhaps an understanding of from where and how the opinion was formed. For instance, I am a senior citizen living in a majority White lower middle economic class area and don't often have the opportunity to share ideas or perspectives on what happens in the Non-White community, or how a person who supports a different political ideology feels about the subject under discussion, or whether similar perspectives are coming from my generation or are shared by the younger people. So I get to "meet the opinionator" through their identity. Yes, it does sometimes invite trolling, but that also is an "opinion", albeit negative.
When I self identify, I am sending the same "handshake" out to those who are the recipients of my opinion.
I have to also say, that I enjoy the comments in the NYT immensely, both those that reinforce my beliefs, and those that provide insight into other perspectives. I find them often as valuable as the columns and essays in providing food for thought.
1
Appiah's Op-Ed flies in the face of recent studies in Phenomenology. Sara Ahmed's essay "The Phenomenology of Whiteness" and Linda Alcoff's "The Future of Whiteness" explain how group identities shape our mode of being in the world. Race is not just a label we can throw away when convenient. It is a constraining factor on life in a society (i.e. in a communally established way of life).
Despite his selective quotations of seminal postmodern theorists (Spivak, Crenshaw), I think that Appiah's viewpoint relies too much on the fictions of American individualism. This type of autonomy from group identity is just as fictive as the Enlightenment's universal subject. And I am saying this as a college-educated black American. (Didn't want to leave that out since it's the entire point of this piece!)
2
Well done. We can't have dialogue when speakers try to claim huge swaths of the debate map via nothing but self-identification. As Mr. Appiah convincingly points out, good ideas and good listening are the gold standards of fruitful interaction. Now, if only his insight somehow catches on...
6
While I don't preface my remarks that way, my guess is that many do so only because they assume (often correctly) that the person they are talking to is categorizing them and weighing their remarks in that light, so, unfortunately, they might as well "admit" it (the identity imposed upon them) up front.
8
I think the whole issue of identity boils down to statistics. If you know the base rate of a defined group of individuals, then you can make a projection for the group. Still, you cannot apply it to the the single individual of that group, not even if you belong to that group. You will only have a probability that X will do Y.
2
Consider this:
Is all the public bl/shaming of certain pigeonholed qualifiers of our nation's population for deeds decades/centuries of yore, despite changes in the law and very positive steps towards more equality moving forward not, in fact, creating many individual strawman arguments?
Yes, each identity has a voice that deserves to be heard YET the source of the originating obstacle was NOT the same culprit. Over the decades, as technology has advanced, so has the conversation as has the societal norms with each passing generation.
It can't ALL be blamed on the 'white male privilege' in America.
4
@Coffee Bean
"Yes, each identity has a voice that deserves to be heard..."
I'm going to say no, NAMBLA doesn't deserve to be heard. In fact, no one really "deserves" to be heard. Ideas need to survive and proliferate based upon their own intrinsic value.
1
@Russian Bot
Ideas of value DO need to proliferate YET who is the arbiter to make the decision?
My comment was taken out of context and should have been quantified by "Yet, each mainstream identity has a prominent voice...".
In today's society Yankee fans have and deserves just as much [non-violent in ALL cases] 1st amendment 'voice' as Red Sox fans.
I suppose that sometimes the "as a" construction does signal a self-appointed expertise or insistence that one is speaking for a group, but just as often, or more so, I see it used to indicate that the speaker has something at stake in the subject matter that members of other groups do not, or may not: "as a 65-year-old woman, I am concerned about Social Security and Medicare policy changes" carries with it the immediacy of the interest that a 35-year-old probably does not have. It means, "I'm directly affected by the issue under discussion," without claiming any authority over others.
18
@Sarah D.
Thanks! That's exactly right.! If I begin with, "As a...," it's always because I am speaking as someone with a stake in the issue.
1
Years ago while I was active in my business, I received 2 calls from a woman business owner separated by a year. On the second call, in which she was seeking some consideration from my company, she introduced herself as the owner of her minority owned company. Since she had made the same introduction in our first call a year earlier, I asked her what her objective was in always introducing herself as the owner of a minority company. She resented my question. But my interpretation of that intro was she was seeking some special consideration, perhaps simply some deference. Or perhaps it was meant to mildly intimidate since she knew I was a white man.
21
It's interesting as I sometimes say "as a man" not to show authority, as the article indicates, but to try to explain what some in my category might be feeling. I often do this when I feel men are "under attack."
1
My best friend is gay, I'm not (or not yet, at 55), and we're both a little worried about very young people rushing into gender reassignment, etc. I went to college with a young woman who said she was gay; she wound up marrying a man, having kids, and living happily ever after. A young guy engaged to a female friend discovered that he was gay, so they broke up, and remained friends; she married another guy. Young people need time to explore their identities. I have certainly changed and evolved politically, and continue to do so. People get a lot of ridicule when they "change sides" or simply explore other sides of themselves. Even ethnic identity can be fluid; one minute I'm Greek, the next, Swedish. There are plenty of different selves to explore. Now I'm old, and that's a different country all together. One never stops changing.
22
Are you seriously equating gender identity with sexual orientation? They are VERY different.
One could always skip the "as a," but identifying some element of technical expertise can be a a valid use of social identity. When commenting as a lawyer, nurse, engineer, physician--or other technical community member--there may be some justification. That does not mean the opinion/comment is necessarily carry more weight, but it can give some validation to thoughts in specialized arenas--even for philosophers.
2
Stereotypes and grouping of any race or ethnic group as a homogeneous mindset has proven detrimental in our current partisan state of affairs. In my humble opinion, the use of an "as is" qualifier is fine if you are referring to your profession or area of expertise, but I agree that trying to lump everyone of a specific race or ethnic background into the same bucket of viewpoints is a slap in the face to the individuals that we are. Our nation and individual communities need more respect for individual viewpoints, and less stereotyping based on an "as a" qualifier.
9
As an earthling myself and speaking for all of them I can safely agree with you. Good day.
16
@Suzy Sandor
Oh, dear, Ms. Sandor. I, too, am an earthling, but do not agree at all with Mr. Appiah here. So you didn't -- and cannot -- speak for me.
Normative claims on Identity politics are necessary when actual policy is involved, such as the descendants of the Georgetown 272 receiving preferential admission.
Normative claims on these issues require what political scientist Adolph L Reed calls essentialist arguments, as in what characteristics/factors are necessary for a person to be a part of and /or speak for a certain group or movement.
In their published work, both Appiah and Reed seem to be completely against thinking about identity politics in reference to policy or otherwise. I agree with what Appiah has expressed here but feel that pragmatist philosopher and Baptist minister Cornel West may the have a happy medium for this situation.
While Appiah is correct in claiming that none of these identity umbrellas is an adequate way of expressing the experiences or needs of the people it supposedly covers, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
“Identity politics” should be a tool. I argue that rather than making sweeping cultural claims and using these issues to gloat to one another, we employ judgments on identity where they actually matter. For policy reasons. For actual reparations. For actual change.
3
This piece helpfully highlights some of the pitfalls of grounding points in one's identity. What's needed isn't the morass of our experience of social location, but a rediscovery of the value of logical arguments.
4
Speaking as someone who studied analytic philosophy and law then spent a quarter century drafting legislation, I found it’s harder for people to misinterpret or misrepresent the effect of legislation built on terms that are scrupulously narrow in scope and used in their ordinary sense or clearly defined.
Conversely, over the years I became convinced that arguments that depend on applying terms that are broad in scope and malleable in meaning such as racism, sexism, patriarchy, and privilege are often unsound and essentially verbal sand castles.
But I’m not sure how much traction I get making these points.
Speaking as a big smart white guy born in mid-century Texas I got the idea as a kid that it was part of my unofficial job to help keep various people down. But I wouldn’t like it if I were treated that way and couldn’t see a good reason to treat people that way so fairly early on I declined the role.
That seems to suffice for people I deal with personally but some who would be arbiters about these matters seem to want more. What more do the would-be arbiters require and why?
I’ve wondered at times if I’d have had more success if I were too proud to do my own photocopying or make my own coffee but speaking as someone raised working class that just wasn’t my style.
Signed,
Often Perplexed
10
@Jack
Some good and well-earned wisdom.
1
@Jack
That good old Golden Rule is still the best rule on earth. Why has it been forgotten by so many?
1
This comes as a welcome relief after the disturbing OpEd piece on the bigoted tweets of Sarah Jeong yesterday. I really hope that not only the NYT but some of my fellow progressives begin to shed unhealthy preoccupation with group identity at the expense of solidarity and decency. Oppression and disadvantage are very real, but they do not come in neatly packaged categories that can be mapped with terms like "white privilege."
I know a few white Muslims (41% of US Muslims are white) who have suffered serious harassment in the post 9/11 years. A friend of mine was traumatized in 2002 when her mosque going. white husband was held for more than one day with no probable cause. Yet my friend ended up switching careers and uses her law degree for humanitarian and charitable causes. She could have taken to venting resentment day in, day out. That's easy. Helping to break the cycle of hate-- that's hard and brave.
23
Professor Appiah: “As a white man,” Joe begins, prefacing an insight, revelation, objection or confirmation he’s eager to share — but let’s stop him right there."
Yes, let's stop him right there, Appiah I mean, not "Joe". The situation in America today of public intellectuals is pretty much the mode of psychological warfare/military tactics and strategy. The goal is to divide and conquer your enemy, have the members who compose the group of your enemy fragment into individuals to where you can isolate and at least marginalize them. As for your own group, whatever it may be, the goal is to as much as possible have each member in the group speak for the group, be loyal to the group, be nothing but the group.
Genuine respect for individuality, belief in actually developing individuals and not groupthink minds, is in sharp decline in the U.S. We are so much in groupthink psychological warfare mode that when we speak of the need to have people respected as individuals with all the differences that individuals have, we reserve these thoughts for our enemy group or groups only, not our own group, and do so not to respect the individuals composing our enemy but to fragment our enemy, have the enemy group break into parts.
This means today every person must speak as a member of a group or be left out, with no voice. Each person speaks as part of a group mind while hypocritically eager to call for individuality especially if it means your enemy group divided into small parts.
7
Great article by Professor Appiah. " As a " German immigrant I encountered nothing but immeasurable kindness and infinite encouragement when I came to the US in 1956 , allowing me to graduate from Clark University in Worcester, MA summa cum laude and from Harvard Law School cum laude, before grade inflation. As a result, my view of the American national character is incredibly positive, Trump's efforts notwithstanding. I trust Donald Trump's presidency is just a blip in American history, similar to that of the vicious nativist movement in the 1850's.
8
As a bipedal mammal of a 21st century country fraught with cultural anxiety, political division, too many nail salons and not enough poetry or music salons, I say "bravo".
20
A more troubling, by far, issue with identify and opinions is the common argument of the form "You are not a member of identity group X, so you can't *have* an opinion on issue Y."
39
@PaulSFO this is precisely where I thought this essay would go, but didn’t. I’ve encountered this tiresome tactic a number of times. Its most direct result is bringing dialogue to a screeching halt. A form of bullying.
Paul,
You should definitely check out political scientist Adolph L Reed’s work on essentialism, as in what characteristics are necessary to be a part of/speak for xyz group or movement?
Best, ashley
As a heterosexual, college-educated white male with no children, the oldest of two siblings, a member of Generation X, whose parents were Jewish and Protestant, but having not been brought up religious myself, while born in the South, and later having lived in New York City, now living in Atlanta, and identifying as a liberal Democrat, while having flirted briefly with Libertarian politics in my 20s, but still respecting thoughtful conservatives like George Will, and being married, but having never been a homeowner, and fortunate to be in the top of the 12% tax bracket, and having been self-employed for most of my life until recently, and being the son of parents who were small business owners, and the grandson of small business owners on both sides, and now teaching at a university, while taking care of two cats, and walking to work each day, despite having grown up in the car culture, and having a direct ancestor who signed the Declaration of Independence, whose descendants ended up poor dirt farmers, but remained literate, with a grandfather from a broken home who was baptized by being dunked in a creek, but escaped from that life through education, and having other ancestors who immigrated from eastern Europe to the Lower East Side through Ellis Island in the 19th century, and moved to the South to open a grocery story as Jewish immigrants in a black neighborhood, but sent their four daughters to college in the 1930s, ...
Oh, wait. I forgot what I was going to say.
96
@MidtownATL
Brilliant. Nuff said.
1
@MidtownATL
I have two cats, also. So you certainly speak for me.
1
I work at a university. A colleague recently published a paper applying intersectionality to our field of study, and she won a best paper award.
I had never heard of intersectionality before.
It seems to be to be an attempt to define people as if they could be reduced to a mathematical expression as a sum of products:
Myself = aX + bY + cZ + ...
If you include enough variables, you could define each person on the planet uniquely. Which ironically would ultimately lead back to individualism, instead of identity politics. Thus, the author's point: "Speak for yourself."
Intersectionality is at best intellectually lazy, and at worst a damaging pseudo-intellectual rationalization for increasingly balkanized tribalism.
To borrow from the title of a famous Computer Science paper from 1968:
- Intersectionality Considered Harmful.
We are all members of the human race. As individuals, we are much more complex than the sum of our superficial identities.
34
I think you missed the point about intersectionality. Especially in trying to trace it to its logical ends, dropping it back into a generalized "were just humans," which couldn't be more wrong.
The concept is a tool that social scientists and humanists use to understand the relationship between personal experience and broad, impersonal, often unconscious social structures.
Like any tool, some scholars use it well, while others use it badly by substituting abstractions and generalizations in place of empirical analysis. But my point is that it's no more lazy to ask questions about intersectionality than it is lazy for a biologist to use a microscope instead of their naked eye. If you use a microscope wrong you'll also fail to see anything useful.
Finally, if you treat social science concepts like scientific "theory" you'll misunderstand what social scientists are actually doing. These are tools for seeing, not overarching philosophies.
4
@Nels Watt
Thanks for your comment.
What are the great insights that social scientists have contributed to humanity over the last century?
I do agree with you that social science is best practiced through qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research.
It is certainly interesting and compelling to try to understand the human condition, both individually and collectively. But in my own experience, I have found that literature, philosophy, and history are more informative than sociology, cultural anthropology, and related fields to achieving this end.
If I am missing something here, I am more than happy to being enlightened.
@MidtownATL
Intersectionality has it’s purposes. For example, the experience of a gay white man vs a gay black man. If you ignore their race you don’t get the full picture. If you ignored their sexuality you don’t get the full picture.
Intersectionality can be thought of as two or more roads of your experiences in life intersecting and merging into one road which is you.
From the article:
“If someone is advocating policies for gay men to adopt, or for others to adopt toward gay men, what matters, surely, isn’t whether the person is gay but whether the policies are sensible. [...] Because members of an identity group won’t be identical, your “as a” doesn’t settle anything. The same holds for religious, vocational and national identities.”
Holy cow, does this obvious statement really strike some people as a profound revelation? Is this how far we’ve fallen in 2018, that all we see is superficial traits in people, rather than opinions and ideas and personalities? Yes, I believe we must have fallen that far, for this article reads like a breath of fresh air, when really it should be common sense to all Americans.
11
Everyone is exceptional and unique, and yet it is a life study to learn how to value this, and convey it to ourselves and to others.
I'm around the Buddhist community a lot and am amused when people expect that by telling me of their years of practice, I'll know they're enlightened. Gives me the urge to step on their toes, or butt in front of them in line, to see if they thank me, or scream like anyone else.
An yet, if there are four people in the kitchen who have never baked a cherry pie, arguing over oven temperature, its relevant to use some shorthand, and say that I'm a french trained pastry chef. It's still possible that I am a bad baker.
I might preface a comment on my belief that it is not much easier for a young person to come out today, than it was in the 60s, by saying I am a 64 year old gay man who has volunteered for years with homeless youth. An intuitive and empathetic 24 year old who listens well to her peers and old people alike, and who has studied, could come to the same conclusion. We should welcome someone like that, and not shame her for being young and straight.
Our ideas, and our ability to express the heart of our being, matter far more than the form of our body and our history. It is, by caring about people other than ourselves, that the perceived need for identities will cease.
5
This essay is an interesting exercise in missing the point. I would complete a sentence beginning "As a white man" with "you have no standing to speak. Check your privilege." and assume the speaker was, well, anything other than a white man.
The author is right of course - no group is monolithic. But whites, especially white men, are the only group everyone is free to belittle, as the Times recently demonstrated with their new hire.
A bolder article would have picked any other interest group and questioned their claim of authority based on group identity. Didn't happen.
Lest you wonder, two recent examples from the Times:
1. "Can My Children Be Friends With White People?"
By Ekow N. Yankah
2. "I’m a White Man. Hear Me Out." by Frank Bruni
His lead explains:
I’m a white man, so you should listen to absolutely nothing I say, at least on matters of social justice. I have no standing. No way to relate. My color and gender nullify me, and it gets worse: I grew up in the suburbs. Dad made six figures. We had a backyard pool. From the 10th through 12th grades, I attended private school. So the only proper way for me to check my privilege is to realize that it blinds me to others’ struggles and should gag me during discussions about the right responses to them.
Parody with a point. Examples abound of this sort of thing in the Times.
13
There are good reasons to say "as a" that have nothing to do with claiming to speak for an entire demographic group. It's like showing credentials to establish that you have direct personal experience with what you're about to discuss, which may affect your credibility with your audience. For example, if you say "as a gay man" and then state your opinion on gay marriage, the listener knows you may have insights on that subject that are beyond his life experiences.
3
The headline of this article "Go ahead, Speak for Yourself" is a bit confusing, because most of the examples mentioned here are from written texts.
The "as a so-and-so" phrase is usually used in writing, e.g. in comment sections of this very paper.
I often start a sentence criticizing the present very overt racism in this country by writing "As a naturalized citizen and a lily-white one to boot......"
Speaking for myself, I hardly think that this is an "assertion of authority.
2
When I hear the “as a...” preamble, I think of someone reaching into their own multiple identity bag and donning the hat that they see fit.
9
If your point is valid, your identity is irrelevant.
11
When is the US going to stop talking about the man made concept of 'RACE'? I do not think, ever, because they have figured a way to lift themselves up for free even if it comes at a great price to others..ONLY THREE HUNDRED SHORT YEARS AGO... the first convoy of convicted felons who were also VIOLENT, uneducated, Protestant, poor,, racist, English arrived in America!
http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/convict-transportation/convict-voyages...
3
As a non- American, I might be confronted on occasion with a peculiar situation, familiar to all foreigners. What I often hear or read are the words "as an American". This intro is supposed to give some weight to an opinion or an advice entertained by the speaker, accustomed to be told how he lives in an exceptional country, "the greatest in the world". Which allows him to imagine he can also speak with an exceptional authority. In English, of course.
1
@Renho
Those English speaker though have quite strong Americanse accents, don't they? And as matter of fact on this side of the pond they call themselves "real American".
@Renho
That’s not(at least in my case) to be used as a superiority thing, but more practical. I follow a lot of economics and crypto currency stuff online. As an American, we are subject to ABSURD laws surrounding them, that no other country has. This is to keep the working classes down. As an American, ive been subject to equally stupid economic policy and wages that havent kept up with inflation or worker productivity in 40 years. In other countries the minimum wage is around $20 an hour and people who work for that can live on it. Here it’s as low as $2 an hour for restaurant servers in states that adhere to the federal minimum. Those are really important distinctions to make and are worthy of separating myself out as an American when discussing the issue with people from around the world.
As a reader looking for a point, I failed to find one here. What’s new. One has to admit the internet certainly provides ample opportunity for that.
1
As a person, I speak. As Mr. Appiah infers, why can't that be enough?
2
"Professor Spivak once tartly remarked, “the question ‘Who should speak’ is less crucial than ‘Who will listen?’”"
This is wrong, and the whole piece is a thinly veiled attack on "identity politics." When we use the "as a" narrative we're not "representing an identity" we're indicating that we're speaking from personal experience rather than some academic perspective. Both perspectives are important, but personal is more important unless you're willing to remove humanity from policy discussions and have cold, academic discussions (no surprise that a professor of philosophy might prefer the latter).
6
"My experience has been . . . "
7
I'm not sure of the irony was intentional or not, but holy smokes, if social and political identity is as complex as Kimberlé Crenshaw claims, maybe, just maybe, it's not a useful construct.
But of course it is.
How else can you signal the virtue of your membership in an oppressed class. Just like hatred of white men, racism by an other name; it's value lies in the catharsis.
How that works for white men, I concede, is a bit of mystery. I've certain felt oppressed in my life, but never for being white and only occasionally for being a man. I got over it though, because that is the manly thing to do.
3
This piece is all about identity. However, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as identity. At each moment we are making decisions and deciding who we will become. What if I were to write: “As a person who has never used until this very instant the form: as a person who ______________,” would I be the same person who began this comment, or someone different? Obviously someone different. Before I wrote this comment I was a person who never used the form. Now I am a person who has used it once.
4
As a member of the human race, I long for the day when we all realize that we have much more in common than what separates us.
And, to the degree that we do judge each other, that judgement is based on character, actions, and accomplishments.
10
As someone who studies rhetoric (chuckle, wink), I think that so much depends upon the context of utterance and its implied purpose/audience. If I say "as a daughter of a first generation college student" in a room full of Ph.D.s, I am likely making a far different point than I would be making if I said this same phrase at a family gathering. It's possible that one is making a prescriptive, over-generalizing comment when using "as a" statements; it's also possible that one might be self-implicating; it's also possible that one is self-satirizing.
I am guessing that Appiah is speaking only to the first of these three choices, and then, yes, I agree it's "problematic," a word I reflexively recoil from, because it is also a distancing and generalizing term, especially when uttered by educated people who presumably have all kinds of knowledge about the damage such generalizing can do. Much of this "problem" can be solved simply by insisting on a greater degree of specificity and concreteness in one's self-descriptions. Language matters more than the gesture itself.
2
Ultimately, identity politics is just plain boring. We've had enough of it!
8
Speak for yourself please. I'll be sick of "identity politics" when discrimination and oppression are in the past, which they clearly are not.
4
@Chrissy
"I'll be sick of "identity politics" when discrimination and oppression are in the past, which they clearly are not."
They never will be.
1
Ah, professor, I’m disappointed. I was hoping you would play this game all the way out. Is the goal of this line of thinking to encourage us to be supremely aware of our own uniqueness, to the point of being unable to identify (in this case, for the purpose of connection, commiseration, or empathy) with anyone who is not ourself? If we continue to strip away all assumptive social markers so that we can only speak for ourselves, where does that leave us? Split off from all others? Without compassion, respect, regard for others? I hope you would hasten to reassure me otherwise. But I see no other logical conclusion to the notion that cultural appropriation (in this case through self-identification with a specific group) is a sin to be avoided at all cost.
As Donne reminds us, « no man is an island ». If we are to gain ground in understanding and having compassion and respect for each other as members of a fragile species, we need to stop finding ways to splinter apart and begin to find ways to connect. We need to recognize our likenesses, not our differences; our kindnesses, not our antagonisms.
Perhaps we need to, instead, stop identifying as gender, culture, race, nationality, etc., and start identifying as beings who have everything in common and begin putting each other first. Caring for others more than we care for ourselves erases many hurts, including those created by increasing divisiveness.
7
I really needed to read this after a week of bitter, identity-driven outrages being slugged out in the media. Thank you, Professor Appiah, for encouraging us to look past the superficial indicators of standing that have paralyzed our national discourse on social progress.
11
After we scrub the ‘as a’ from our failing expository reserves, we really ought to go after the ‘so’ that prefaces everything. Maybe we can expunge both at the same time. As if.
7
Haha, I see some value in “as a,” though not sole value. But while we’re eliminating, how about sentences that, out of nowhere, start with “I mean...”
2
The “so” preface irks me too.
1
The “So...” preface is cultural appropriation of the Japanese “Ah so”, and the more ponderous Germanic “Und so”. Let’s fold it up and tuck it away.
1
It would be nice, but since so many people (primarily on the left) have decided that you have no standing to talk about certain issues unless you have the right skin color or religion or whatever, it's become the norm.
Maybe if left-wing leading journals like the NYT would push back on the idea that you're not allowed to have an opinion on some things unless you have the right external characteristics, and your opinion agrees with left-wing orthodoxy, then we can put a stop to this "as a blah blah" stuff.
31
@Ben: Nice that you didn't "as a" yourself, but you're still putting the "as a" onto others.
1
@Ben
You've given your opinion in The New York Times, Ben. I saw no "as a" there, but I disagree with you, anyway.
@Ben Thank you! That whole PC thing started as a right wing concept to use against the left. Unhappily, at least some of the identity folks have taken it to the stratosphere. Just suggest that what they are talking about is a common experience not limited to their identity, and get ready for the attack. Very unpleasant and yes, narrowminded.
1
There are times when people wish elevate themselves and their opinions by exploiting their membership in a group that is considered to be beyond reproach. The most insipid example of this is any comment beginning with the phrase "As a mom..." After decades of under appreciation and under-representation, the pendulum has swung the other way and now mothers--- simply by virtue of having procreated--- seem to be painted as paragons of wisdom and rectitude. The passive aggressive point that's usually made is clear: "You're not a mother. Only mothers are qualified to weigh in on this subject."
17
1) The word "reform" in paragraph 6 should be capitalized.
2) Monogamy is certainly NOT a patriarchal invention; it was invented by heterosexual women seeking stability.
3) The author may find Trump's victory surprising, but those of us who were actually paying attention to what was going on in this country in 2016 (i.e., not the mainstream media) weren't.
Other than those things, great piece.
6
@Rebecca Monogamy was invented by men because of inheritance laws, so that they would know who their children were. Of course, the men could still sleep around if they wanted to, but women had to choose just one man so that everyone would know that any child she bore "belonged" to him. Read Engels.
3
@Rebecca
Doesn't make sense to say that monogamy was invented by women. Certainly a woman's fidelity to a single man would have been demanded (by men) and accepted by women as the price for some greater measure of assistance--as her fidelity would give him some greater certainty of paternity of her offspring. Why in the world would men accept women's demands for fidelity on the part of male partners? Just because women preferred it?
3
@Rebecca
If you consider Mr. Appiah's piece "great," then you should consider dropping that "those of us" nonsense.
There's a difference between recognizing one's own characteristics and parroting identity politics. If I say "as a gay man", it is because my experiences and knowledge and opinions with respect to that attribute inform what I am about to say. It is not because I presume to speak for all gay men. It is not because they told me what to think at the gay community agenda meeting. Contrary to the author's apparent distaste for the use of "as a", it actually alerts the reader/listener to the author's likely meaning, source of information, credibility, perception of self, and much more. If I as a speaker assume that each gay person speaks for all of gaydom, that is my fault. That's the kind of sweeping, lazy generalization that underpins all the best -isms and -phobias. "As a" gives much-needed context to everything we hear. When Donald Trump AS A DRAFT DODGER says athletes must stand for the flag, his words should be understood to be coming from a draft dodger, and weighed accordingly against the beliefs of those who kneel AS MILLIONAIRES WHO COULD EASILY WASH THEIR HANDS OF THAT FIGHT. Context matters. "As a" matters.
28
@Andre
Well said!
1
Mr. Appiah needs to read his own column. He is doing precisely what he claims others do when they preface what they say from the point of view of their social identity. This speaks to how, as human beings, our social identity is our alter ego.
4
As an American, I wonder what happened to Dr. King’s instruction that we judge people on the content of their character. Speaking for myself, I’d love to see that idea back in style.
51
@Rufus Collins I truly wish this were the case. Each individual is responsible for their own lives and how that relates to other people’s perceptions of them. Unfortunately, Post Modernist theory that we are essentially our group identity and individuality is irrelevant is a major force in current thinking. How many times do you come across statements of blame or innocence for whole group identities now. We are all individuals at the end of the day. We are neither to congratulate or to blame for the success or failure of people who just happen to look like us or belong to the same grouping.
7
As Apaiah correctly states, prefacing one’s opinion with the prepositional phrase “speaking as an X” really says nothing about your opinion unless the beliefs and cultural experience of the group you identify with should happen to be universally accepted by you ,the speaker , and all your listeners.
The speaker usually uses the phrase to ironically and openly to confess her group’s prejudice or at least the effect of his or her lived experience on the expressed opinion. It makes the group responsible for the opinion. It seeks to dilute the responsibility of the speaker.
The individual member claiming an “X” identity might have opinions contrary to his group . But, that is also highly improbable when the phrase is used voluntarily.
In my view, the phrase is a personal confession of inevitable group prejudice used to disarm the listener’s immediate retort that “of course you would believe that because all “X” hold that view” . Moreover, it seeks to be exculpatory. “It is my view but my group is responsible”.
Either way, it fails in its purpose. The speaker remains responsible for the enunciation of her views regardless of their origin especially if the opinion is prejudicial or irrational.
Apiah’s general claim remains true. The phrase reveals nothing about the speaker other than that she is unwilling to accept individual responsibility for her view as an autonomous moral and rational agent.
To judge by most of the comments in this thread, the people most adamantly opposed to identity politics are white men, who, of course, never, never engage in identity politics because everybody knows (don't they?) that white men are the default.
Hilarious.
10
@camorrista
This is an example of identity politics. Because they're white, their opinion isn't valid.
23
No one said their opinions weren’t valid, whatever that means. The commenter simply pointed out that in this thread, white men are the people we could vote Most Likely To Oppose Identity Politics (though the true award might be called Most Likely To Have Benefited From Personal Identity).
3
@Trebor. I fully agree with you. And by the way, dear America, if you really want to understand what the root of identity politics is, read up on Cultural Marxism. Our universities have been spewing this abhorrent creed at our youths’ impressionable minds for the past five decades. Where do you think we got the likes of Sarah Jeong? #CancelledNYTSubscription (last day today, yay!)
2
This is a variant of the "Well, that's your opinion!" rejoinder. That's the only one I'm entitled to give.
1
How does this intersect with cultural appropriation (in literature, for example)?
2
Ah. Such lovely humorous writing. As a hater of the man bun I hope to read more from this author. Ok opiners to be for the NYT, follow this lead!
Establishing credentials before opining has its merits, especially with regard to the question, “Who will listen?”
Of course, group identity may be viewed as a credential. There are times when it is appropriate:
“As a black man, I believe recent allegations of police brutality….”
And times when it isn’t worth nearly as much:
“As a lesbian, I question the absence of females on the Pequod…”
It seems then that the benefits of doing away with “As a” (as preface to group identity) depends on context. Rather than eliminating it altogether and substituting “Speaking for myself”, it might be better to simply insert “My experience” in front of the words “As a”. In this way, we know the speaker is relating something personal (surely a credential) without her/him necessarily assuming or believing (or having us - i.e., those who might listen - assume or believe) that said experience is experienced by all sharing one or more of the identities indicated.
6
Right on. It's all about context. If "as a" were the only substantive thing in an argument, it would mean mostly nothing. However, we're not sitting around a table discussing these issues but on anonymous Internet forums.
I've used "as a" to preface an argument with the knowledge and when I read others using it, sometimes it enhances their arguments and sometimes diminishes it. We should at least be aware of that risk when we use that phrase.
Good op-ed.
Brilliant and important article. Thank you so much! This is a common problem in Leftist activist circles, not just in the sense of people using "as a" to denote some kind of authority, but also with respect to finding tokens to justify problematic strategies. For instance, an animal rights group I once worked with wanted to do a campaign that many felt was disrespectful to and appropriative of the black chattel slavery struggle. In spite of the fact that myriad people both within and outside of our group objected, the leaders ultimately went ahead with it because they were able to find ONE black person who said it was okay. Why did that one black guy get to speak for all black people everywhere? Especially when there was only one of him, while scores more people— of all colors, including black— voiced disapproval and offense?
4
SECOND TRY
This badly needed to be said, and I haven't ever seen it said better. Thanks, professor.
It should be required reading for the huge and growing army of opportunists and hustlers out there who shamelessly exploit their race, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and on and on. for what can only be called panhandling.
The most coveted status in America today has become that of victim. Being an official victim is a source of (unearned) moral superiority and smugness and privilege. As the case of Sarah Jeong proves, it means a double standard -- one's transgressions are judged more leniently than those of a working class white.
It's become a form of welfare for the rich. Am I the only person who gags at the spectacle of Americans who have won the lottery -- white shoe attorneys, Hollywood stars, news anchors and personalities, tenured professors, NYT columnists -- and who demand the privileges of victimhood?
If our society rewards people for being victims, soon the main component of our GDP is going to be the manufacture of grievances.
30
Perhaps the people are not claiming to be spokesmen for some huge group but rather are telling the listener something about where they are coming from. That might even make conversation easier.
10
The only identifier that matters is, "Speaking as a human being...."
6
I don't understand the purpose of this argument. The first principle in argumentation is "standing." Does the person have "right" to represent a position based on either an educated or professional expertise or empirical experience?
Not invoking gender in an argument to which gender is the subject or topic? Really? What kind of convoluted Jedi mind-bending and/or sophistry is this article trying to exercise over the reader?
2
Brilliant and important article. Thank you so much! I see this often as a problem in Leftist activist circles, not just in the sense of people using "as a" to denote some kind of authority, but also with respect to finding tokens to justify problematic strategies. For instance, an animal rights group I once worked with wanted to do a campaign that many felt was disrespectful to and appropriative of the black chattel slavery struggle. In spite of the fact that myriad people both within and outside of our group objected, they ultimately went ahead of it because they were able to find ONE black person who said it was okay. Why did that one black guy get to speak for all black people everywhere? Especially when there was only one of him, while scores more voiced disapproval and offense?
4
but its easier to be outrage by claiming its because of some intrinsic quality of the person instead of what the person themselves believe.
i say this as a cis straight heternormative western european rooted male.
1
Until we have elections for spokespersons for different racial, ethnic and gender groups, the idea that any one person speaks for any group is fundamentally dishonnest.
Survey data from well designed and run studies have some merrit, but they are vulnerable to bias from which questions those running the study decide to ask.
I say the above representing my own views, I am not speaking for all of humanity.
1
“Labeling” is considered a cognitive distortion by behavioral psychologists. Why is a single feature - say skin color - overgeneralized to define an entire person? How is anyone a “black man”? Aren’t they also “a human being who has XY chromosomes and heavily melanotic skin.” What if you bite your nails? Are you a “nail biter”? Not to be crass, but we’re all “farters.” Any sort of labeling (gender, skin color, class,
ethnicity) is a gross overgeneralization that tells you little about another person - unless of course you want to overgeneralize about them and ignore their humanity.
5
To start a sentence or phrase with “as a ___” usually implies that you are adding your own input to a discussion judging on your own past experiences. For example, for me as a gay female or and Italian American, I can tell people certain things or experiences in my life wouldn’t have been if it weren’t for my identity. However, I cannot say something like: “As a gay woman, I love cars” or “As an Italian, pasta is my favorite” because those aren’t really relevant to my identity. Most of the time, when people use “as a” they aren’t trying to act as a spokesperson for all the members of his identity, but rather just offer some sort of insight that has been shaped by their identity.
However, I do believe that bringing up your identity to justify your stance or beliefs on certain things shouldn’t be necessary. For example, a gay person doesn’t need to say “As a homosexual, I support gay marriage,” because they don’t support same-sex marriage simply because they are gay, but because they have respect for other people’s choices and relationships. A black person may say “As a black person, I am against police brutality.” They may be more passionate about it because it primarily hurts people of their race, but saying “as a black person” isn’t needed because any person with values and sensibility knows that police brutality isn’t okay. People feel the need to justify their beliefs by backing it up with their identity, rather than just saying, “This is what I believe in, period.”
2
But no one really cares if I speak, in particular, "for myself," nor should they, unless, perhaps, they are already my friend. The important thing is to, indeed, speak in such a way that my view can be of general interest and provide some insight into something bigger than just me. In fact, I have learned from conversations with particular others many insights into the general groups of which they consider themselves a member.
A refreshing perspective to hear!
1
Speaking for myself, here is what I notice of the identity issues that I am seeing in my community and in the news. People look for an identity--outside of their family-- of who they are in this world by how they connect with others in their communities. After all, we are social creatures that have always gravitated towards tribalism. Yet, we are living in a time of history that is more complex than ever before, and culturally more diverse than ever before.
Moreover, many people are substituting a vast majority of their human connection opportunities with technological connections (emails, social media, etc.). So instead we resort to finding quick fixes and shortcut connections that are superficial--if we make any genuine connections at all. As the author stated, identity is complicated, yet we think that a couple of factors represents our identity and the tribe we belong in. Enter the peril of identity politics and identity authority figures.
When it comes to being personally understood and understanding others, and finding our identity in the context of this world, there is no substitute for real human connections. Not technology, not identity politics. And human relationships take effort, they take time, and they take being genuinely present and interested in other people. But who has time for that these days, right?
2
As a Times reader, I tend to agree, but with provisos. First, the self-ID lends credibility at least for that person's perspective.
And second, it's important to know how people want to be perceived in order to gauge your interpretation. If there is a big gap between who they say they are and what they're saying, that is important information.
On balance, as an old guy, i don't like to argue as much as i once did.
1
I immediately distrust anyone who uses the phrase "what the American people want (are saying, need, etc.) is..." - it's hyperbole promoted as authority.
Yes, it's a very popular interjection used throughout the political spectrum - and a hallmark of those who prioritize rhetoric over discourse.
4
As university English teacher, I have read and studied memoirs, autobiographies, letters, and other forms of life writing for over 50 years. I watched the various identity trends come and go: women's autobiography, cross cultural autobiography, all forms of ethnic and racial autobiography and then disability autobiography, mental illness memoirs, autobiographies of addiction and recovery, and the list goes on. The most useful construct my husband and co-author Joe Hogan developed for dealing with identity in these forms was something we called the "interstitial self," the recognition that each identity is an almost moment by moment interaction among all sorts of family, cultural, national, etc. influences. The beauty of this idea is that it allows for spaces between various "identities" where an individual can exercise autonomy. I have spent my whole life fascinated by the problem and process of identity, but I think it will be a catastrophe if we allow ourselves to become trapped by it. Thank you Kwame Anthony Appiah for this insightful piece.
6
Great work Kwame. Yes - that that is my opinion as the individual human person I am, hardly needs to be said.
We each include multiple foci of identity as part of what and who we are, that become singularly explicit in our actions at different times and in different places, whilst the others remain dormant, not relevant, then and there. In other words, we wear several, or many, hats - but not all of them all of the time.
Privileging one, imagining it defines you always, everywhere, is pretension - and reveals you as longing for, or enjoying, the security of a tribe, rather than being content to be your own unique, complex, multi-faceted, individual human self. Of course, such are illegitimately implied to define us primarily and always by others also.
I don't think I've ever said "As a [whatever]" in my life. I don't intend to start.
1
There is an interesting discussion in the comments to another piece about whether non-whites can hold racist views. The thing about beliefs is that, as propositions, they detach themselves from their owners and have an identity that does not depend on the latter. That is how communication is possible. You and I can communicate only if you express a belief and, though I am not you, I can at least consider it. It is the same thing that I am considering and you believe.
So I don't see what difference it makes whether someone is "representative," or who is speaking "on behalf" of whom. The question of what is to a certain person's advantage is independent of who is expressing an opinion about it. As Socrates points out to Thrasymachus, the stronger (or anyone) can be mistaken about what is to their advantage. The question is where the best argument lies. And that, in principle, can be held by anyone. Yes?
2
My wife read your anthology, Identities, when she was in college. I still don’t understand exactly what homospectorial fashion photography is, but I liked the pictures.
2
What Appiah is saying is mainly that we are becoming extremely lazy in our capacity to judge others by what they say they are--after all, when I was growing up I was told never to give a lot of credit to people who start conversations claiming that they are "this" or "that." I've never done such a thing and I honestly can say I know no one personally who has ever done that.
The question is that of adopting ready-made stereotypes, manufactured by politicians, advertisers, and others with no interest in you ever exercising your own judgment and relying on your own insights into another human being, and, more horrifyingly, into yourself.
1
You don't have to be a Buddhist, African-American, transgender Navy SEAL to have a complicated set of intersecting identities. Every single individual is made up of so very many dynamic inputs and experiences as to make each individual, in the end, utterly un-categorizable.
Sure, our "identities" - our sex, clothing, color, profession, accent, gender, car we drive, preferred foods, letters after our names, zip codes, political party affiliation, and on and on and on - do help us "know" something about the person.
But just like philosopher Alfred Korzybski reminded us that "the word is not the thing" these "identities" can only hint at the ultimately indefinable, unique individual.
3
Great so I should never have to hear the term "Unapologetically Black" again. Instead it will be, for example "Unapologetically cis, male, college educated, heterosexual, middle aged black". In my view this would be progress.
2
@Jim
How about just Jim.
3
Man-bun Joe may be using"as a [insert identity]" as shorthand for experience, as in, "as someone who has never, and will never experience white on black racism" I believe X.
I mean, if lived experience isn't relevant to our policy debates, I am not sure what is, apart from reading academics that tell us what is or is not.
2
Professor Appiah ends the piece with the line, “But here’s another phrase you might try on for size: ‘Speaking for myself …’.” I wish to add that in addition to the people he has in mind – people who presume the consent and agreement of those whom they presume to be members of their tribe – for many others, the real put-off in adopting this stance is that in speaking for oneself one is forced to think for oneself. In speaking for oneself, one cannot either plagiarize or attribute thoughts to someone or something else and abdicate responsibility for what one says. Making sense of life’s experiences is hard and always a work in progress. Many people, I suspect, give up before they reach any semblance of self-realization and instead turn to consuming neatly packaged and readily available modes of thinking. Hence the appeal of identity politics, especially when the gratification one derives from having the world “make sense” comes with the bonus pleasure of scapegoating. Knowing the distinction between bad luck and the march of time and change, or between the just claims of others and an injustice to oneself is truly tough. Finding someone to blame and seeking satisfaction from them is a tempting resolution. Joining ranks and finding strength in numbers is an irresistible validation of it all. The psychological paradox underlying a certain kind of identity politics reflects the semantic paradox of the word itself: It is about the dissolution of self in sameness.
2
Mark Twain once noted that people individually were mostly decent but in groups were often not. I think that what he was observing was people displaying different identities. Whether it's Trump stirring up an audience or people blaming an imagined power elite for every perceived injustice we see the identities of people altered by others, even though whole heartedly embraced, it's beyond how they see themselves alone, and this illustrates how fluid identity actually can be.
3
The argumentum ad verecumdiam has to be the most commonly found fallacy in comments, opinion pieces, columns, etc.
(Beneath his byline, "Mr. Appiah" mentions the fact that he "is a professor of philosophy." Oooh. That means his opinion matters more than . . . mine?)
3
@Pecan
Depends on your credentials. Look up "Mr. Appiah". After reading, you can "Speak for yourself" and answer your own question.
2
I tend to immediately tune out anything that comes after “As a white woman,” or “As a black lesbian” because I know it is likely to be slanted and filled with propaganda. Tell me what you think and why and I will decide how much weight to give it. Chances are good I already know you are black or white or a woman or a man or a person of a certain age just by looking at you or your photo or maybe by seeing your name. If it happens to come up at some point that your personal experiences related to race or sex or occupation or residence has informed your opinion, fine. But please don’t insult my intelligence or waste my time by claiming that you represent every other person who shares your sex or race or cultural background by making such an assertion.
4
@nytimes - just out of curiosity, why does the bio not mention that Appiah writes the Ethicist column for the magazine?
This makes a pretty compelling case for being antisocial, leaving it to all of you to get your heads on straight.
3
It’s an important point to make. To wit, that self-identity as a basis for an argument is at best a weak foundation. However, I have to wonder why the author chose a somewhat derogatory and stereotyped example of a “white male” to illustrate the point. Is it because it would be less inflammatory than leading with an example from other self-identified groups, the sorts that are already well represented in the Times’ op-ed section?
4
I suggest people who want to understand the disaster of identity politics and equality of outcome visit the Youtube channel of Prof. Jordan Peterson. You will never get the pop culture muck of identity clamor off of you shoes walking around the popular press. You will watching Peterson.
People need to conspicuously avoid self identification with groups, and they need to stop identifying people as "black" or gay" except when that is clearly used as small detail as with "in a hat" or "blue-eyed." And this is exactly what is happening because society needs a reset, as we see in this too genteel article.
The author will probably be attacked by a sensitivity mob online for this mild story, revealing that under the sugarcoat of sensitivity delivered up by post moderns lies an animal mob that is a creature of our genetics. That in itself says more about identity than all the wailing of that mob - a mob of multicultural multiethnic sensitives will act just like online 15th Century Conquistadors as soon as they are given the chance. And you can know that without respect to any identity except human.
5
Race and sex political group think is more divisionary than uniting. The slicing into segments of similar group thought or experience is rampant today. Divided we will fall.
4
Identifying with race is a very strange point of view. It is based upon the notion that the age of discovery and the colonial empires of Europeans was the consequence of advantages given to Europeans by nature. Really it’s a group of humans suppressing and exploiting other humans but recognizing that they would be unhappy if it were they who were being exploited. So they find justification which excuses their brutality and assures them that it can’t happen to them.
The research into the human genome lays bare the self deceit. All people are descended from Africans. Africans are the only humans who have no DNA from other hominids. White skin is an adaption that allows better use of UV light in Northern latitudes and it comes from mating with Nethandrethals (sp). All the natural abilities that all identify with being human comes from our African ancestors with other hominids contributing certain advantages of adaption that have nothing to do with cognition. White supremacy is a delusion.
3
@Casual Observer
Neanderthals not Nethandrethals
Thank you for publishing this thoughtful and constructive essay.
2
The problem with "intersectionality" is that it is used as a tool to claim greater victimhood. If I have more "isms" than you, then clearly I am being discriminated against, and the fact that I scored 50% lower than you could not have been the deciding factor in whatever decision was made.
6
The NYT should survey their readers on their socio-economic, racial, gender, sexual orientations and all relevant identifiers before they read articles on structural discrimination. The results of such surveys should be available to readers. Those results would make clear that the comments most likely posted are not fact, but mainly dominant white subjective notions that have everything to do with maintaining our current order.
3
Put more simply, uttering 'as a ______' before saying something is sometimes relevant, sometimes not. Sometimes it can be a way to humble oneself...to state the obvious, other times quite the opposite...to show unquestioning superiority of thought, on the topic at hand. We don't need to over-intellectualize this.
On a related note, one thing I've observed (as a white woman, lol) is the following:
...I will be discussing something with a white friend...I remember one time it was about stop & frisk policy (which inordinately affects black/latino men). I was saying how bad and corrupted this policy is....how often the term 'furtive movement' is applied by the cops, in justifying such stops of black men etc. My white friend then replied that a black guy he knows doesn't want the stop & frisk policy to change...that it's really helped to make the neighborhood in which he lives safer. My response to that was 'ok, so you are pointing to One black man you know, and who happens to like the S & F policy? And your point is what?...that his viewpoint must necessarily echo that of all or most black folk?
So this 'as a ________" line can also be used in a more indirect way by people outside of a given group, and who want to try and prove some type of point by implying that all/most people (in whatever their given group may be) will think alike.
We might think of the paradigm, “Speaking as __________” as what Wittgenstein called a language game. What we are allowed to say in this game depends on how we fill in the blank. I like Appiah’s idea of filling it in with “myself.” This doesn’t change the fact that it’s a language game, but it does give us a new and effective move we might want to use.
On the other hand, the idea of intersectionality reminds me of a passage from The Adventures of Alice in Wonderland. Alice has fallen quite a distance down the rabbit hole and then says to herself: ‘I wonder what Latitude or Longitude I’ve got to?’ This is followed by the author’s comment: ‘(Alice had no idea what Latitude was, or Longitude either, but thought they were nice grand words to say.)’ Like Alice, we learn to apply all kinds of labels to the world and then think we are educated and have some understanding of it. It seems that by the end of the book, Alice had outgrown this childish habit. Perhaps someday we will too.
Carroll, Lewis. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Wisehouse Classics - Original 1865 Edition with the Complete Illustrations by Sir John Tenniel) (p. 3). Wisehouse. Kindle Edition.
identity? No one ever asked me to my face, nor have i ever volunteered one, but now that it's become so important:
I am
1. An entity living in the known universe
2. A living entity on this particular planet, Earth
3. A human being; i.e. one form of living entity on Earth
4. A male of the human species
5. A husband, father, grandfather, son, brother, uncle, nephew, cousin, and friend
6. An Occidental, whose worldview is shaped through western history, with primary roots in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean cultures, and the Middle Eastern and Mesopotamian cultures.
7. An American, whose cerebral software has been programmed in the American form of the English language, with corresponding notions, whether true or false, of national values and world history.
2
I beg to differ with Mr. Appiah. When I listen to someone speak from their personal identity experience, I do not automatically assume that they are speaking for everyone in their group. I assume that they are speaking from their personal experience and I want to hear what they have to say. To ignore what they have to say is just another form of being dismissive of a person’s personal experience. It’s another way of not validating them or their experience…Don’t we already do enough of that? Being dismissive and not validating another human being’s experience is precisely what has gotten us where we are today when we treat others as if they don’t matter.
2
This is an interesting thought. As a..... Over generalization. The only time I feel like using an identifier is if I have specific expertise in a topic, such as, " As an experienced horse person, that Central Park carriage horse is in bad condition. It's feet hurt, it's underfed and by looking at the body language of its head and neck, angry. " (I also saw a lot of carriage horses who looked great. Someone should be advocating for the horses. I doubt most New Yorkers can tell whether a horse's feet are in good condition.)
I can't imagine saying with any seriousness,... as an old, white woman. Ah, but I did! To my black nephew, who was concerned about being black in an affluent area, "As an old, white woman, I pretty much have immunity."
1
As an over-educated, under-employed, libidinous, creative and sometimes despondent 69 yr. old heterosexual white woman, I consider my ongoing battle to overcome stereotyping thought forms in my own brain one of my most difficult endeavors and greatest accomplishments.
5
Great article! One of my pet peeves in life is when people use some kind of attribute of theirs to frame any discussion, when it has zero relevance to the discussion. This is quite common in communities that otherwise feel marginilized in my experience, and it makes me grind my teeth when I hear something like "as a woman of color" when we are talking about the weather or something that has nothing do do with it.
Obviously, someone is always speaking for themselves, people are different within any 'community'. On the other hand, if someone is talking about let's say transgender bathrooms, about how that is about sexual deviants taking advantage of women, a transgender women could say "As a trans woman myself, I can tell you all I want to do is use the bathroom and get out, and from that perspective I no more want a creepy man in there then any woman would". It is talking from the I perspective, but sharing as a member of the community.
1
Identity politics in the U.S.?
I don't believe the U.S. is much good at treating each individual in the nation as an individual anymore, if it was much good at all at this in the first place, at helping each person locate his or her talents and develop them to greatest potential. It seems if people are not collapsing into this or that racial or ethnic or religious or gender or sexual or what have you identity they are being herded into being consumers or part of this or that corporate or governmental organization or at best they take themselves in the now almost empty word as Americans.
Contemplating the American political, cultural, economic landscape it appears as if being just a person, having your own individuality, is next to impossible. A person mills about falling into racial/ethnic identity, religious identity, gender/sexual identity, identifies with this or that brand of product, goes to work at a particular place. Personal identity is a driver's license or the like. It's a fractured at best, simplistic at worst state of mind. Worse, the arts and humanities seem in decline when they were obviously vehicles of arriving at some sort higher synthesis, coherence, beyond this type of problem.
All seems impersonal science, technology, technocratic/bureaucratic state under which people are milling into this or that type of group identity because the future doesn't appear to treat each person as an actual person but merely as...well what? Not animal, not human but what?
This concept has to be understood across the board, as it is the foundation of all prejudice. For some reason people still apply it to "this" and not "that" in a hypocritical mode.
The bottom of this is: generalizing about a group of people.
We can't do it about black people, we can't do it about white people, we can't do it about Muslims, we can't do it about Christians, we can't do it about the rich, the poor, the working class, we can't do it about those caught in the crossfire in South Chicago or about cops doing their jobs. We need to judge every human as an individual and understand that usually the majority of those people are not involved in the negative behaviors deemed toxic, otherwise we are being prejudiced.
At the same time, we need to understand when a TREND is problematic, and figure out how to reverse the problematic trend. We need to do that without blaming the category of humans involved in that trend. We need to do it acknowledging all the people not participating in that trend.
It's not that complicated, but doing it without hypocrisy seems to be challenging for many.
6
When I hear it among friends here in Brooklyn, the “as a white man” construction is an outgrowth of something shared by many progressive, urban, hipsterish types: more than ever we are socially aware of the long history of white dominance in daily life, not just of power but of identity and of conversation. To say “as a white man” is to say “Take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt, because I know I’ve led a life sheltered from many of this world’s painful realities, and my perspective here may be limited.” That’s a valuable thing to acknowledge.
2
@Andrew
“To say “as a white man” is to say “Take what I’m about to say with a grain of salt, because I know I’ve led a life sheltered from many of this world’s painful realities, and my perspective here may be limited.” That’s a valuable thing to acknowledge.”
As compared to who?
For pity’s sake people bragging on being insipid cowards too lazy to have explored any of the traditions that have gone far beyond this nonsense.
@Andrew
Why offer an opinion if you preface it by making sure people know you there is no point in listening to what follows?
1
I think in this age of trolls everywhere on the internet waiting to pounce at the slightest provocation, people preface their comments because they don't want to be jumped on, or have a mob suddenly bully them.
The phrase is a lazy and simple short cut for many to get to their point without crating mass hysteria that they might be talking down or minimizing any particular group.
I have done it often meself when I preface some comments with: '' as a through and through Liberal''. I even have it in me moniker so that there is no equivocation as to where I am coming from.
We are still in the throws of a backlash from white privilege and that is not going to taper off anytime soon, even as demographics catch up and surpass. Every group is jockeying for dominance as they evolve in our multicultural and human constructed world - which includes race and the like.
The 1st Amendment seems to still come with caveats.
66
@FunkyIrishman,
You wrote, "Every group is jockeying for dominance as they evolve in our multicultural and human constructed world - which includes race and the like. "
You are making profound error in thinking that groups in America struggle for dominance. There are a small minority of troubled people who think that their personal fortune is determined by some unquantifiable measure of the 'dominance' of their identity group. The overwhelming majority of Americans are just trying to get through life on their own terms. I think that is very close to the message of this article; your position seems retrograde, Old World, and sectarian.
6
@Charles - Please don't hold back.
I think that there are a variety of groups that are being boxed in whether they like it or not. The powers that be like it that way so that they (the small group you speak of) can dominate while dividing.
I don't doubt that many Americans (let alone global citizens) just want to live their daily lives, however more and more (I would submit a clear majority) know that we are all connected regardless of political stripe. What happens over there can happen over here and so on.
I have commented multiple times that I think the worst human construct of all are borders on a map. In lieu of that I want us to come together and forget our divisions.
You may think of my position however you wish, but I know what is true.
Regards.
1
@FunkyIrishman,
In view of the online moniker you have chosen, I find it interesting that you would write, "I have commented multiple times that I think the worst human construct of all are borders on a map."
As for knowing what is "true", well, that is more subjective than most of us would care to acknowledge. I had a career in an industry where many of my co-workers were immigrants and most were non-white. I learned that what boxes us in is having to the linits others try to impose on us, whether the others are of our own (in) group or other (out) groups. We build own own boxes.
The author does not go far enough with her urge that we speak for ourselves. As Jordan Peterson makes clear in his excellent talks on the matter, intersectionality taken all the way down, results in the individualism that the West invented long ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIxDdnUgzxk
To speak "as a" member of any group, is almost always to engage in a fallacy, the fallacy that members of that group have a common viewpoint. I'm a gay person, and tell you what, I can virtually never "speak as a gay person", because my views rarely represent those alleged to be the "collective" gay/lesbian views or political positions on anything.
Going further, I would argue that there ARE no "collective" group views on any issue, and that to assert that there are, is a kind of violence against the individual, the very same "tyranny of the majority" that the identity politics left has so often accused the western/colonialist "establishment" of perpetrating on minorities. In fact, the individual, unique and fantastically diverse , is the ultimate minority, and any effort to deny someone's individualism or force them into a group viewpoint against their will, or mandate that they agree to a group's views on anything -- based on something extremely shallow such as gender, race, sexual orientation --- is all a form of tyranny. Identity politics is anti-human in the sense that it sets the group against the individual, and presses for an erasure of the unique human being.
3
Americans learned the wrong lessons about equality. Every American citizen has the right to equal protection under our laws. No where in our constitution does it say that "all opinions are created equal and deserve equal treatment"
The American people's belief that they are "entitled" to have their opinion receive "equal" support is the biggest mistake we made as a country.
Everyone is entitled to have their own opinions; but not their own facts. It is theory, logic, facts and evidence that determines the value of any opinion, not who holds it or how strongly that opinion is held.
198
@Ronny Correct. Every person has value, and the right to an opinion. The two are very different things. The marketplace of ideas will decide if those opinions have value.
@sarah- I don't think Ronny is disputing that. The point is more that people have come to believe, as pushed by Oprah and others, that "their truth" is their most important weapon, or some other such garbage. Their is no "their" truth other than in Trump-world. There is "the" truth. We may not always know what it is, but surely you must admit that it exists. When people try to counter truth and data with their feelings and individual stories, we go seriously astray.
1
@Ronny
You can blame the media for that one! In an effort to appear “fair and balanced” (cough Fox News I’m looking at you) they reported complete falsehoods just to keep their older and unsophisticated viewers glued to the screen. (And I say older and unsophisticated, because younger more sophisticated viewers found outlets online that had more diversity in reporting than any of the television networks)
If the "as a" is used to preface some identity attribute commonly associated historically with discrimination, such as race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, ... then I supposed your points are valid if one assumes that any individual can ever represent an entire group. But these "as a" categories are a tiny subset of all that exist. The default or tacit assumption should always be that any individual can only ever be speaking for themselves. I think it quite pedantic to have to actually state this.
Consider the following "as a" prefaces:
As a cardiologist ...
As a climate scientist ...
...etc ...
Here they are 'mini-resumes', attributes of the speaker that are not immediately obvious from their appearance.
These are (or should be) baggage free.
But again, why would anybody take any individual as representative of whole groups.
1
@oldBassGuy
Why? Because the person making the comment is invisible and nameless. The only weapon s/he has is the claim of authority.
Believe it or not.
@Pecan
True: "invisible and nameless".
But this is a non-sequitur. How does a claim of authority make this person a spokesperson for or representative of an entire group?
This is a long overdue and wonderfully cogent piece. Reliance on "identity" has become a crutch. I have never been comfortable with identity politics, and I sit at the intersection of three minority groups--yes I could have said "as a member of..." Yes, rejecting identity politics has become a way for the majority culture to dismiss or trivialize minority groups' concerns, yet overuse of "identity" brings the risk that we simply self-ghettoize, if not self-deport.
Besides, what is identity? I "identify" as many things before it would even occur to me to cite my ancestry, or ethnic origins, which have little to do with what kind of person I am. Members of the dominant culture have at times oppressed me because of my ancestry, or, more accurately, because of the assumptions they make based on what they see on the surface. That is exactly why discrimination based on prejudice is so wrong and offensive. To cite the iconic Dr. King, it has nothing to do with the "content of our character"!
Thank you for making a badly needed contribution to the debate over "identity".
214
@charles
You are a member of one of three species of very closeky related African primate apes aka bonobo, chimpanzee and human. Your identity began in Africa 300, 000 years ago.
@charles
There is only one multicolored multiethnic multifaith multi national origin biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species that began in Africa 300, 000 years ago. That is scientific reality. It is not a crutch. Color aka race has everything to do with the production of Vitamin D and protecting genes from damaging mutations.
Black people came to America from Africa as enslaved white European property. Black people were and still are separate and unequal to white Americans.
Slavery and involuntary servitude are still legal in America. America has 25 % of the world's prisoners with only 5 % of humanity. And while 13% of Americans are black, 40 % of the 2.3 million Americans in prison are black like Ben Carson because blacks are persecuted for acting like white people do without any criminal justice consequences.
Stevie Wonder cannot see Barack Obama's permanent brown hue, but the rest of America can and judged him in accordance with American history. Being color blind does not mean ignoring the reality of color in humans. It requires eliminating the white supremacist bigotry and prejudice that accompanies color aka race.
@charles ~ and thank you (all!) for all these ruminations [dictionary doesn't like my spelling] on Kwame Anthony Appiah's thoughts. Amen!
Identity politics is the norm and is increasingly unavoidable in our daily lives. Identity politics is a way to obtain entitlements for some people in the short run while rending the fabric of American society in the long run. Insisting that we think, act, and be treated as individuals would conflict with the self interests of many politically active groups. It would also be a lot of work.
5
Thank you for this! As an individual with only one brain and no extra-sensory abilities, I am not qualified to speak for anyone other than myself. This article made me reflect on the times when I erroneously think that I can.
270
@Charles K.
It is part of our basic human nature and nurture to categorize and organize among other people around common shared features beginning with family, friends and foes.
When you speak for your family and friends and against your foes you are more than an island.
1
This is just the other side of the same coin. Sometimes one can and should other times not so much. In other words things like life are complicated and to simplify them is to avoid them, something I enjoy myself,
Oy. As a person who is usually accused of overthinking, and also as a person who engages in what the right loves to call identity politics, I feel like that's what Mr. Appiah is doing. I interpret these "as a" statements most commonly to mean "I believe that my membership in this group informs my perspective." Pretty simple. Not always, sure. I'm sure some people do use it as an authority argument. Maybe that depends on the context. ("As a person who has a uterus, please let me inform a man saying something about uteruses what the experience is like..")
An explication of intersectionality as it relates to the specific topic at hand and to the specific speaker is a little too long to preface most comments with.
1
There is probably a generation split here, but to my ears, using identify to give weight to any assertion is incredibly meager evidence, and on a planet of six billion people, should carry no weight. But "these days," (sorry), our kids are hammered with the idea that they are special, and their identify group is special, and so any opinion that they express is deserving of deference or respect or attention solely because they uttered it. Tying that opinion to an identity is a method of raising the stakes and cutting off debate. Ultimately it's a lazy but regrettably effective way to elevate personal experience to a social statement when, in fact, it is nothing of the sort.
2
Thanks for such a nuanced, thoughtful piece! As an academic (I'll refrain from any other 'as a' identifiers) I've become increasingly concerned with this tendency in academia.
My concern is that much of the 'as a' talk is simply irrelevant to many scholarly arguments, and, per Ockham's razor, that which is irrelevant to your argument weakens your argument. I often struggle to see how your demographics are relevant your professional competency: to your ability to analyze data, or to apply professional expertise. If anything, 'as a' language weakens your professional opinion, as you are announcing to the world that you only able to comment on subjects germane to your own tribe.
In academia, most of the folks I've heard using 'as a' language are graduate students and junior faculty -- especially women and people of color. My worry is that the constant apologizing for one's positionality will hamper their still-developing careers. At best, it adds unnecessary verbiage (if you're standing right in front of us, we don't need you to tell us whether you're a white man or a black woman). At worst it suggests a lack of confidence in your own ideas -- which is one of the quickest ways to bomb a job talk or not get invited to a collaboration. Meanwhile the people who probably could use a dose of intellectual modesty will get the opportunities which materialize when one does good scholarship and is not afraid to say so.
4
What I love about this article is that it plays a trick on the many people who think we should all be free of "identity" and just be "human." Some commentators have applauded the essay for taking this position, but it does exactly the opposite. Prof. Appiah insists that most "as a" claims of identity are too limiting because we all inhabit multiple identities which intersect and collide to the point that "we're not just one thing." Whether we adopt those identities ourselves or have them thrust upon us by society or history, the point is that they are always already there, and they are always incomplete, unstable, contingent, and ready to become something else.
4
I liked everything you wrote-- brilliant. It really cut to the chase. But there is something else I'm hoping you can add to your analysis. Often, it's not the speaker who makes an issue of identity, but the listener or even a third party.
"So-and-so's perspective has weight, even if s'he's a brain surgeon, because s/he grew up in the [such-and-such] community." Or, "Of course you think that; you're a [name that privilege]."
No matter how much one tries NOT to make it about identity, or even proposes to make it about one or another identity, there are others who work hard to decide WHICH identity is the salient one for the current discussion.
What to do, professor?
7
Oh dear, how people do become so easily offended by utter nonsense. Life is sure going to be harder if you carry on like that. There are stereotypes for a reason; most people, like sheep, fit neatly into boxes.
Why do you need to fix your identity to an opinion?
Does being a professor of philosophy give you a certain higher enlightenment? Perhaps you think it does over the uneducated grunts of the world. So maybe the grunts are doing the same; just explaining that they are just dumb grunts compared to the great enlightened professor.
For those white males who think that "identity politics" is superfluous, outdated, too "PC", self-victimizing, and just plain wrong, I invite you to don a skirt and heels and walk by a bar on the lower east side at 2 am, when the drunks are coming out in NY droves. Or stand around outside a Trump rally and try to nicely blend in.
@Jack from Saint Loo
Ah! So in other words, life is hard for everyone and it's hard for everyone in different ways? Got it.
@Livonian Well, remember it. This is why you'll lose the House in November.
Well, speaking as a reader who is totally confused by this op-ed, ....I’m totally confused.
3
After 30 plus years of identity politics, the left has trained a generation that your viewpoint can only come from your identity.
4
@James Speaking as someone who has been paying attention for the last 60 years, from what I've seen both the left and the right have been playing the identity politics game pretty heavily. The style and specifics are often different, but the main motive is usually the same: To advance their power and discredit the opposition. Only rarely is it a sincere effort to better understand themselves, the world or the other people who live in the world with them.
Will the NYT pay attention to the arguments presented in this compelling essay?
Last week, an article on a mathematics prize of some sort carried a title with some piquant aside about the winners being "all men." The body of the article, however, involved no discussion of the role of gender in the field, but a substantive (perhaps boring) summary of some obscure mathematical theories. Undoubtedly the editors assumed (rightly) that a faintly provocative title with a suggestion of gender politics would garner more clicks than a title about a bunch of math nerds.
For many, peddling identity politics means clicks, money, and power. Nevermind if the whole discussion is distancing us from the sublime mystery of our shared humanity. Not to mention, a little bit boring.
27
@Paul- Exactly, the only thing as bad as discrimination is identity politics and the NYT is the chief exponent of the latter re women.
Ironically they accomplish the same thing, as women haters/discriminators on the other side of the political spectrum, ie women are damaged, flawed people that have to be coddled, given special treatment, forever treated as different people and managed/doted on by society and men.
Generalizing from one is never a good idea.
3
As a French speaker, might I ask that someone fix the accent on “trés” to an accent grave, to make “très.” Merci.
4
Good essay. Though I have to roll my eyes a little.
As a white man (yes, I said it) it's at least notable that the author's example is a white man in the media comfortably sipping a drink.
It makes me think that Kwame arrived at this entire thesis while watching television and going "hey, why's this white liberal guy asserting identity--that's not his domain."
But I agree with the Author, it's as ridiculous as it looked on TV. Wearing identity on one's sleeve usually looks ridiculous to those not in the same headspace no matter the race or identity.
Except: Ultra-liberals try to pretend it's not ridiculous (if it's the right person in the right way), while ultra-conservatives shout angrily at others who promote their identity then use it as an excuse to do the same.
Such are the pretentious notions to which identity in politics easily leads. And so we need a thesis like this, to help us crawl out of a hole that's been dug way too deep.
But, instead of a thesis to help us out of an unnecessarily deep hole, perhaps someone could do a thesis at the root of the matter; that is, from a slightly more common sense perspective. The thesis will mostly be the same, it's just a slight change in perspective and with it, we can avoid the hole altogether. Call it: "We are all individuals, treat me as such even though I am part of a culture and some of its subcultures."
Or, is that too obvious?
2
The article is mostly wrong. Moreover it got printed only because the author was speaking AS A NYU PROFESSOR
2
You are speaking for yourself. "Prepositional posturing" is what academics do.
1
Thank you!
I will preface this, as a long time socially activist left/green Jew (just so I don't get accused of things again)... I've noticed people squaring off heavily (and aggressively) into identity. Obama (for one) saying "women move away from me in the elevator because I'm a black man" - good grief, women move away from all men in the elevator if they can. The level of offense being taken when you say you share someone's experience "a white man was on the moving walkway at the airport and didn't look behind him to let anyone pass, and the black woman didn't say anything" - good lord. People are just looking to be offended using identity as their r'aison d'etre.
Voting based on identity - Hillary Clinton saying "don't you want a woman president?" Well if that woman were to be Sarah Palin or Betsy Devos or Carly Fiorina - the answer is no. And Joe Leiberman wouldn't have gotten my vote even if he is Jewish.
At least if you are going to look thru the lens of identity, give a good reason: minority voter disenfranchisement, redlining, longer prison terms... but somebody locked their car door as you went by (Obama again) - the world will never be perfect, and maybe they were just locking their car door anyway, or maybe it was the guy behind you who looked shady. Give it a rest!
10
I think in this age of trolls everywhere on the internet waiting to pounce at the slightest provocation, people preface their comments because they don't want to be jumped on, or have a mob suddenly bully them.
The phrase is a lazy and simple short cut for many to get to their point without crating mass hysteria that they might be talking down or minimizing any particular group.
I have done it often meself when I preface some comments with: '' as a through and through Liberal''. I even have it in me moniker so that there is no equivocation as to where I am coming from.
We are still in the throws of a backlash from white privilege and that is not going to taper off anytime soon, even as demographics catch up and surpass. Every group is jockeying for dominance as they evolve in our multicultural and human constructed world - which includes race and the like.
The 1st Amendment seems to still come with caveats.
3
"When I was a student at the University of Cambridge in the 1970s, gay men were très chic: You couldn’t have a serious party without SOME OF US scattered around like throw pillows." (emphasis mine)
Physician, heal thyself.
And, you may want to alter your byline so no one presumes even more about thyself
2
Legitimate "opinions" are based in fact and reason and probability. They have nothing whatsoever to do with race, gender, or other social identity. Rationality steps right over these personal considerations. Does this author assume that all opinions are arbitrary and fact-free? Does he think that everyone is deficient in personal honesty? Does he think that everyone is uneducated and that there is no such thing as expertise? He should choose better colleagues.
2
@Tim Clair. I am partial to the argument you lay out here, which is a central assumption of Western thinking for at least 300 years. However, there are a substantial number of articles and books written over the past 50 years providing excellent evidence that what counts as reason and fact are partially determined by social context - this is one reason why factual and reasonable thinking looks different across cultural borders and through time. "As a" statements have been an attempt to acknowledge that evidence and question the kinds of facts or reasonable thinking that some groups have imposed on others throughout history in order to subordinate them. The problem, speaking for myself, is when "as a" statements substitute for or hinder our very real need/obligation to TRY to think and argue factually or reasonably, in spite of our many limitations.
So many NYT articles--and especially opinion pieces--are so race/minority/gender/poverty/politically slanted or oriented that anyone who isn't poor, minority, ethnic, LGBTQ or liberal/left pretty much feels obliged to state his/her/ze background before making a comment or stating an opinion.
I believe (see, no "as a") the NYT deliberately fosters this we/they position in order to promote its owners' political and social agendas.
8
Who am I? I can imagine being a pampered member of the 1% or a grandmother struggling to raise children in a drug-infested ghetto.
Then I might be a delegate to the U.N. struggling to represent my country but to promote world peace at the same time.
Or I'm an astronaut floating above the fantastically beautiful planet not seeing the problems pollution and greed have caused below.
In imagination I can be anyone. And long to lift their suffering.
3
Since there is only one multicolored multiethnic multifaith multi national origin biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species that began in Africa 300,000 years ago everything that you write or say is underwritten by your color aka race....human.
Color aka race is a benign evolutionary fit pigmented response to varying levels of solar radiation at altitudes and latitudes related to the production of Vitamin D and protecting genes from damaging mutations.
Color aka race is a malign white supremacist socioeconomic scientific demographic political educational historical American myth meant to legally and morally justify black African enslavement and separate and unequal black African Jim Crow.
Human beings are one of three closely related surving African primate apes the bonobo and chimpanzee. We are driven by our nature and nurture to crave fat, salt, sugar, water, habitat, sex and kin by any means necessary including conflict and cooperation.
Tell that to Charles Blow.
1
The author is a professor at New York University ... is NYU a private or public institution? Are tax payers paying for this vacuous stuff?
3
@BD NYU is a private university in the public service, as is their motto.
To quote a wise man, google before you tweet.
1
@RP ... Whew! Thus, all privately funded presumably?
Better yet, to borrow from Donna Summers
Google, tweet, rinse, retweet.
1
Speaking for myself, sometimes especially in anonymous comments such as appear here in the NYT and elsewhere it helps to have some background and perspective.
2
I don't believe the claims made in the "as a" introductions. Anyone can be anything on the internet.
1
@Pecan, true but I choose not to be so skeptical.
Not every opinion needs to be underwritten by your race or gender or other social identity. In fact, just shut your mouth until you develop some intelligence and process some information about reality.
1
As commenters Patrick and James pointed out, “as a” is often used defensively. This is especially common when the identity being invoked is likely to be perceived as negative (“as the descendent of slaveholders, I feel a/no special responsibility to support Black Lives Matter”) or is associated with group norms the speaker intends to breach (“as a white woman with a PhD, I honestly wish I could just marry an affluent man, have six kids, and stay home.” Liberal whites sometimes use it to indicate humility before asserting their opinion (“as a white person, I can only imagine what it’s like for a black man to be stopped by cops on a dark road in rural Alabama, but...”) or to stave off charges of appropriation (“as a white jazz singer, I [fill in anything]). Sometimes these wordings are dishonest — like “with all due respect, you’re an idiot” — and sometimes they represent a good faith attempt to place one’s self in a larger context.
3
"As a white man'..... You're kidding, right? This is THE example of the phenomenon under discussion?
4
The human “races” are incredibly recent evolutionarily and very superficial. It’s rude to harp on one’s race or religion as an identifier. I have often heard and read that someone who is not an American black cannot possibly understand such persons’ experiences. I don’t think non-Jews can understand what it is to be a post-Holocaust Jew. We would have to be deliberately stupid to ignore such facts.
2
Thank you Mr. Appiah. It would be nice if we could go back to being people, rather than, as you point out, self-appointed ambassadors of pigeon-holes. Surely the idea of diversity should applaud every individual's nature, and take into consideration how they were nurtured. One suspects that the sheer weight of humankind at this stage of the Anthropocene has led to this shortcutting of individuality.
1
I wear my race and my gender,
Like a decoration on the front of my fender.
I blow loudly my horn,
To give everyone the warn',
That my identity is social legal tender.
4
Wow - talk about the pot calling the kettle...
2
Duh.
1
An insipid hesitant fearful statement of what is obvious to teen agers with good heads on their shoulders requires a gay philosophy academic to be said at the Times?
Yup.
And it gets worse.
It is as the entire empire of philosophy on whether identity even exists does not exist, much less the many philosophy empires on where identity comes from and what it is and does.
But the editorial board of the Times has made its commitments to ignorance because they represent a new dawn of identity for all earthlings.
Twits.
1
- Hah, white man lazy man, African said.
- Huh?
- Yes, white man walking while sitting, African said watching white man on a bicycle.
NYT opinion article finally sheds light on how Trump won in 2016. More at 11.
Mind boggling, yet predictable that NYT readership even needs to be reminded of this "brilliant" insight.
2
As a person with an internet connection and a digital subscription to The Times, I feel quite able to post comments on this site.
3
The problem is less the speaker pre-pending 'As a ... ' to their thoughts than the left having spent years indoctrinating every listener to add 'You as a <?>... talking to me as a < >' before they start listening to the speech.
5
Good stuff.
Ive never been the type to use the "As a..." intro. Found it odd when others do, because if its another white guy, I know things are about to get weird, and not represent me at all.
As to; "Let’s go back to Joe, with his NPR mug and his man bun. (Or are you picturing a “Make America Great Again” tank top and a high-and-tight?)"
I pictured a balding, trucker-capped, round guy, with the sleeves cut-off the MAGA t-shirt, blurred tats, and plenty of man-side-boob. Too much side boob...always too much...
I am a regular reader of Mr. Appiah's very thoughtful ethics column in the Sunday Magazine. This column leaves me thinking of a lot of situations re identity which I encounter continuously as I listen to public radio and read the NYT and other liberal outlets. It also reminds me of how angry I get when I read or hear references to my generation (over 70 now) as having reactionary politics. Maybe that's why I sometimes feel that it is useful to preface what I say with my age and gender. It's an interesting topic (identity) which seems to rely to a large degree on stereotyping.
Well said Professor. Beyond intersectionality there is lived experience, family background, biology, genetics - all shaping our world-view. And for many of us still, it is paramount the idea that each person has a deeply unique soul. My "I" and your "I" will always be fundamentally distinct, though sharing the right to respected.
2
Which is to assume that these days selves can be divorced from social identities.
Identity politics in the U.S.?
I don't believe the U.S. is much good at treating each individual in the nation as an individual anymore, if it was much good at all at this in the first place, at helping each person locate his or talents and develop them to greatest potential. It seems if people are not collapsing into this or that racial or ethnic or religious or gender or sexual or what have you identity they are being herded into being consumers or part of this or that corporate or governmental organization or at best they take themselves in the now almost empty word as "Americans".
Contemplating the American political, cultural, economic landscape it appears as if being just a person, having your own individuality, is next to impossible. A person mills about falling into racial/ethnic identity, religious identity, gender/sexual identity, identifies with this or that brand of product, goes to work at a particular place. Personal identity is a driver's license or the like. It's a fractured at best, simplistic at worst state of mind. Worse, the arts and humanities seem in decline when they were obviously vehicles of arriving at some sort higher synthesis, coherence, beyond this type of problem.
All seems impersonal science, technology, technocratic/bureaucratic state under which people are milling into this or that type of group identity because the future doesn't appear to treat each person as an actual person but merely as...well what? Not animal, not human but what?
On another note -- priorities. I can't believe we're sitting around discussing identity politics when there is a 16-year-old in New Haven whose father is about to be deported.
1
@R The NYTimes publishes multiple articles on multiple topics SIMULTANEOUSLY. Society can consider more than one issue at a time.
1
Bravo! Such a timely, important concept. Let us be judged not by our height/weight/color/gender/ethnicity/ class/...ugh, my fingers are getting tired. So to the point--judge people by the quality, rigor, and insight they bring to a discussion, not by whatever identity one happens to think is most legitimate in the issue of the moment. Thank you, Kwame.
I don't claim the right to generalise. I do claim the right to separate myself from other people's generalisations. If someone tells me that "all x are y" then "speaking as an x, that's nonsense" is an entirely appropriate reply.
2
Politicians do this in the worst way. "As a mother, I am upset that a gazillion kids got shot," but apparently, as a politician, I don't care. I loathe people who say this kind of thing. It also excludes other groups from taking part in grief. I am not a parent. You think I can't be horrified and devastated when I hear that children have been killed?
I have also heard such reasoning fallacies as, "As indigenous persons, we've been here the longest, and that means we have the best understanding of how to manage the land." That simply does not logically follow. It does not follow that if you belong to a certain identity group, you have magical insights into what constitutes good policy.
Today's misguided identity politics also have led to the call for "authenticity," meaning a white person now can't teach about any art or history that originates in the non-white world. I have a colleague in Art History, a wonderful and beloved professor, whose students complained when she exposed them to some art from Africa. She wasn't allowed to teach about it anymore, you see, because she wasn't African.
People have gone crazy.
I agree with this wholeheartedly - but Mr Appiah's own employer has been hamming up identity politics to beat the band. One recent example - repeatedly touting Georgia's Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Stacey Abrams, as a progressive black liberal - and not mentioning any of her other awards or accumulated skills:
Stacey Abrams is a Yale University graduate, and has been awarded Champion for Georgia Cities by the Georgia Municipal Association, and Legislator of the Year by the DeKalb County Chamber of Commerce. She received the Georgia Legislative Service Award from the Association County Commissioners of Georgia, the Democratic Legislator of the Year from the Young Democrats of Georgia and Red Clay Democrats, and an Environmental Leader Award from the Georgia Conservation Voters (ok, that one's liberal). And in these times when international relations experience is critical, with our instability in Washington DC- Abrams is a lifetime member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Next Generation Fellow of the American Assembly, an American Marshall Memorial Fellow, a Salzburg Seminar – Freeman Fellow on U.S.-East Asian Relations, and a Yukos Fellow for U.S. – Russian Relations.
And to throw off that New York Times 'black woman progressive liberal' label even more, Abrams won Grand Champion for showing 1000 lb. heifer Bessie at the 2012 Legislative Livestock Showdown at the Georgia National Fair.
THAT'S Stacey Abrams' identity.
6
@common sense advocate Yes! We are bombarded with "so and so is the first woman/hispanic/gay/etc... so and so" as if being a woman/hispanic/gay/etc. is their only qualification. I look forward to the day when I hear "We elected an excellent person with expertise, experience, and integrity" .......and nothing more.
1
Gotta love articles like these that bring out all the New York Times readers who talk about identity being a construct and that we're all just human beings, so people should just quit being so sensitive. Because if that were true, racist slanders would not exist, and people would be randomly beaten up for appearing different, and no one would be judged for anything, ever.
I don't like starting sentences with "as a," but quite frankly, sometimes I use it because I have to make a point among colleagues and friends who speak as if my frame of reference/lived experience is just like theirs. It is not, but people whose identities align with the mainstream prefer to believe that everyone is just like them.
"As an Asian American," uh, yeah, I really do hate it when strangers call out "ni hao ma" or ask if I do karate. Its weird and rude that people even do that, right? "As someone whose parent has a severe mental illness," yeah, those dinner table jokes about the local homeless crazy lady aren't funny to me, but profoundly sad. Strange that I need to feel bad about feeling bad, right? "As someone who was in foster care," despite my veneer of privilege today, my childhood was not like yours, so let's not talk about that 'other' demographic group as if they're not in the room.... See how that goes?
As a Cuban/American I want people to know my truth. When Cuba became a communist county, President John F. Kennedy, a Democrat and a humanitarian opened the gates of America to all Cubans. We must wonder what our fate would have been had the President been a Republican.
I arrived in 1960 with the belief that this country stood for liberty and equality; that as long as you were a decent, hard-working person anything was possible. Everything changed when I saw a rental sign that said: “No children, no Cubans, no pets.” Then, I realized that equality was just a print; that there was an underlying layer of racism in hiding waiting for the right racist to be elected President for them to come afloat
Many people refuse to see that we’re what we’re regardless of how we dress or how to try to dress to look otherwise. .
So funny that so many are blaming the Left. Falling victim to the flip-side of the issue presented here. While many self-identify, many more spend way too much time and energy on identifying others.
Blaming the Left for the rise of Identity Politics is absurd. The Left was reacting to the identity politics of the Right, in their incessant and long-storied blaming of minorities,immigrants, gays, and even women for our nations ills. Everyone not aligned to the Rights POV were deemed the enemies of the order, safety, wealth and ongoing prosperity of the US of A.
The Others! Others, others,others are to blame for this, that and everything in between...the foundation of the GOP rhetoric for decades now.
The Left, parts of the Democratic party, merely reacted to the Rights marginalizing, and vilifying and otherwise blaming all our societal and economic ills on everyone but their own policies that were undermining the Middle-lower-classes, while giving more and more to those with plenty.
The LEFT didn't create Identity Politics. They might have over reacted, spent too much energy on appearing to over-favor those in these marginalized communities, thereby appearing to not favor the rest of the voters, and losing some ground with them.
But invent it!? Not even close.
1
Better not to have an identity at all. Nor to pay attention to anyone else's supposed identity. Either you have something worthwhile to say, or you don't.
But you should have an approximate idea of how much you weigh. It is basic medical information, and knowing it has nothing to do with all those irrelevancies you mention.
1
As an earthling and individualist, THANK YOU Professor for this long-overdue essay. The epidemic of narcissistic identity groupthink you describe, which cloaks itself in a facile wokeness that purports to be a force for social progress, is actually without a doubt the most divisive force in our society today. We should all embrace our shared humanity and dispense with meaningless identity altogether!
9
In a world where people consider an argument solely on its merits rather than the person presenting it, I might accept Mr. Appiah's argument. In reality, most of us include in our considerations the qualifications of the person from whom the argument originates.
Most of us, at some time or another, have prefaced our point with our qualifications and/or our biases: As a doctor, as a prosecutor, as a climate scientist, as a gay person, etc. It gives context. And often it's relevant.
But it never occurs to me that the person is presuming to speak for an entire group. In fact, often the person's identity is presented for contrast. For example, I have a very conservative friend who happens to be gay. I've heard him on several occasions include that fact that's he's gay as part of his argument; that not all gay people support the policies of liberals.
Of course, many use the 'As a...' preface to give their argument more weight than it deserves; an appeal to authority that may have no relevance to the argument. This is just chest-puffing.
@hammond
Yes, but why did your conservative gay friend feel the need to say that not all gay people support the policies of liberals? Could it be because, as a society, we've identified gay people as thinking a certain way and only that way?
Why can't Thomas Sowell's opinions differ from those of his race without being called an Uncle Tom? Wouldn't it be better to argue against his opinion with one's own opinions? Maybe that's just too much work.
1
What a lovely utopian view of sharing perspectives and everybody listening to others.
But it's not that simple is it? If you try to share your opinion without any qualifying statements, like an explanation of the identities that inform your perspective, you are naturally drowned out by the people who have always held institutional power -- that is, white men. Their opinions naturally matter more. And I don't mean in Twitter arguments. I mean in the White House and the rest of D.C., at the heads of corporations, banks, and various institutions.
It is, in fact, the black lesbians who have to worry. Let me know when we see one in the Oval Office, then let me know when their successor isn't, well, akin to Donald Trump, then I'll rest.
Of course, as Appiah points out, not all white men are at the top of power structures in America and not all black lesbians are suffering -- because other socioeconomic factors came into play. But overemphasizing the complexity of intersectionality is just as dangerous as underemphasizing it if it means blinding us to basic truths. Fact: There is a history of systematic oppression of women, various racial minorities, and LGBT people in America. I think this deserves more attention than some exasperation with the way people draw attention to these issues.
Thank you! I've been astonished over the last decade by how far people want to claim individuality by putting themselves into a gender/ethnic/religious category.
I used to live near the Castro neighborhood in San Francisco, and in those days you were "gay". Gay pride! And now it's LGBTQ+ -- pick one! be different from the others! -- and I guess the "+" means there's more microtome sociology to come.
But I'm wishing upon a star ... It's a basic human principle that I finally recognize in my seventysomething years: people want to belong, they want to conform, they want to be told what to do. They need, at a primal level, a social category to live in.
1
All these comments arguing with Appiah: what are you arguing with? The only thing he's trying to do is deconstruct certain delimiting and stereotypical ways of presenting oneself or defining oneself.
"One is just not one thing." This is simply true: we are all variegated in that we learn different things from what appear to be the same experiences. Blake wasn't kidding when he wrote, "A fool sees not the same tree as a wise man."
4
As we battle anti-choice people politically (I say that as a white middle-aged, liberal feminist), it's important--especially in comments sections where people are talking in reference to an article--to be able to share who we are.
If there'a an article about over-turning Roe V Wade, and someone is commmenting, it's helpful imformation if someone prefaces their comment with:
"As a married mother of 4 who had had two abortions...."
"As an older woman who saw relatives die from botch illegal abortions...."
"As a woman who opposes abortion based on my religion..."
"As a man who caused an unintended pregnancy..."
It help frames the comment. It's useful.
@Anne Unfortunately, the identity is considered useful (valid?) only as some sort of granted authority available only to those with certain 'lived' experiences. I can have an opinion or a solution based on facts and reason without any actual lived experience with the topic and still be someone worth listening to. If you had a nasty chronic disease would you only listen to a doctor who had the same? That applies to all kinds of other topics too. To judge someone's right to speak on a topic and be taken seriously because they don't 'qualify' according to some arbitrary criteria defined by others who set the criteria based on their own unique experiences is to seek an echo chamber rather than greater understanding.
1
@Anne
Why do any of those identifiers matter? The married mother of 4 who had two abortions isn't playing identity politics. She has actually had two abortions. That's her individual experience; it isn't her group experience. The older woman; who cares that she's an older woman; isn't it enough to say she saw relatives die from botched illegal abortions? The woman who opposes abortion based on her religion; why is her gender relevant? The reason she's in opposition has to do with her religion, not her gender.
I absolutely agree -- sometimes, in fact, an identity of one sort or another is invoked in order to exempt the writer from making a coherent argument, and/or to discourage others from disagreeing --
4
Terrific essay. Should be required reading, as we are frequently told we are not "x" enough for our own identity, which is garbage.
2
My question is: if you met yourself would you like him/her? Well you would at least be able to understand you, even if you couldn’t stand you.
1
Regrettably you have just red-lined the entire progressive agenda - politically and socially.
btw... apologies - in advance - to anyone who takes offence at red-line.
1
"Homophobia can lead men in South Africa to rape gay women but murder gay men."
But?
Both murder and rape are horrific (and often related) acts of violence; however intended, "but" just reads poorly in this context. I suggest Dr. Appiah either rephrase or replace this example.
1
Of course, the author is entirely correct in the subject of his opinion piece--we should think twice about speaking on behalf of our identity. And he is taking a subtle but justifiably jab at the pretentiousness and prejudice of progressives whose very calling card is identity politics.
But the truly instructive part of his essay is the first paragraph, after which you might as well stop reading. In gently criticizing the identity politics of his brethren, Kwame Appiah obligatorily panders to that very same identity politics by leading off with the fictional "white man" speaking for all other whites. Of course, no white man in his right mind in America would attempt to speak in public on behalf of whites. To do so would call down the self-righteous wrath of the very progressives with whom Appiah finds common cause. To speak as a black or hispanic, or Asian man (or woman) is applauded, but attempting to speak positively as a white man is verboten in America.
To speak openly as a "white man" among American intellectual elites like Appiah is to be immediately labeled a dangerous racist--unless, of course, it is to confess the shortcomings or worthlessness of whites.
1
I met a “man” (is this stil an acceptable identifier?) the other day for the first time. Just a friendly, “hello” from me. For the next several minutes, he stammered off his accomplishments in experimental psychology at various Ivy league schools, how that allowed him to send his “highly successful” lawyer son to those schools, etc. yet never mentioned his race or sex once. An ego-centric marshmallow is just that. Chances are, they are simply lonely, sick individuals in a perpetual state of mental isolation.
I hate identity politics because the minute 'you' point out to me how I'm irreparably different from you, you have just erected a barrier that you say I can't cross. All that does is inhibit real friendship and understanding.
3
It has been my experience that in commenting in the NYT, even when I comment about something like agriculture in Montana, if someone disagrees with me and replies, they will relate to my address, i.e. it is inconceivable in their that I have an opinion on something not formed by my "identity" as established by the NYT. And if they disapprove of that identity, by opinion is tainted by their policy of intersectionality, whether conscious or not.
There was a short time when either I by mistake or the NYT removed my address. Lo and behold, people related to what I wrote and not to where it was being typed.
Speak for myself? I'd be happy to. And when I don't, I point that out quite clearly.
1
@Joshua Schwartz
As a woman who has posted with a man's name occasionally, I see how differently people address men.
1
Thank you for this column, I have been trying to convince French friends that "Qu'est-ce tu penses en tant qu'américain ?" asking me to give my opinion "as an American?" just doesn't work. I have suggested that "Qu'est-ce tu penses en tant que toi-même ?" "as yourself?" might be more likely to get an opinion out of me.
1
The Liberals spend their time inventing ways in which they can claim that race and identity define us, then complain when people identify with the group they thought was picked out for them.
Reverse micro-aggression?
2
@Ken
FYI. Race and identity definition isn't a "Liberal" invention -- it's a human one.
Shocking that the Times printed this well articulated, non-accusatory piece against identity politics. I thought I was reading something on Quillette. One hopes this is a sign the tide is turning against the toxic PC identity politics the Times usually favors. Bravo to Mr Appiah and the NYT.
2
speaking for myself, I found this editorial instructive. thanks
1
Who dreams this stuff up? People with too much time and money on their hands and not enough work.
1
In short this essay succinctly states the case “I’m not a doctor but I play one on tv” while I render medical aid or opine on a matter.
1
The author plays identity politics throughout his essay, but tells others not to do the same. He falls into an identity politics trap when he writes: ".. the black novelist Trey Ellis wrote." He uses identity politics when it's convenient for him, and with a name like Kwame he doesn't have to write "as a" about himself, because it's obvious.
1
.
Humans are social beings. We need social skills. America is a tossed salad of cultures living together … and so Americans have been exposed to a wide swath of human variation and have developed a high degree of tolerance and understanding. This should be celebrated even as the refining of tolerance continues.
“Who are you?” is an everyday tacit question we ask about those around us. This ie not easy to answer accurately and takes time. We often get mentally/socially lazy and just use external signifiers: gender, sexual preference, ethnicity, religion, career, etc. We need to try harder.
Philosophy can help individuals better understand others (relationships) in at least two ways: By encouraging us to know ourselves first. “Who am I?” is the resulting question. This should be answered in a positive, affirming way – “I am __ such and such”. It should avoid “I am NOT __ such and such” as this response never quite tells us who we ARE. Second, philosophy can offer a framework of human identity so that we can tackle this vital, but difficult question. How about: body (physical) balanced by soul (spiritual), mind (intellect) balanced by heart (intuition), self (psychology) balanced by others (sociology). All together this is the True Self – in three dimensions at a point in time. Then over time behavior happens, giving evidence of the True Self.
If you operate at this deeper level, identifying as, say, your skin color or sexual preference is silly and almost meaningless.
I like speaking for myself and did a lot of it when I was teaching in University. To me it was pretty much the same as taking responsibility for myself. I wanted my students to do the same, but they sometimes had trouble believing I really wanted to hear from them. As for my identity, you would have much trouble guessing "where I was coming from" because some of it would be obvious if you were looking at me, and other things would be obvious if you listened.
1
Good piece in being neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of "as a" prefaces. An argument for thinking. When one is tempted to speak or when one hears "as a," one should not presume it is meaningful, informative, or relevant to whatever follows. It may be, but one must question it as carefully as any other assertion. It is not manifestly true by virtue of the body one presents to the world.
1
The author is right, except for the tenuous tiptoe tactic, as though identity based examination were proven to actually work. It's the opposite, it's proven to fail so often that we now see this pullback. The subtitle should be it's converse: Race, gender, or social identity should not underwrite your opinion. Neomarxist post modernism which is from where we get this rutted identity road of ideation, is a disaster.
The fundamental unit of social activity for politics or change should be the individual free of labels or tags associated with their easily observed qualities.
3
The premise here is all very well and good. Ultimately, one should only speak for oneself. But there's no way of escaping that one is also 'speaking as', whether they formulate it that way or not.
There's also no way of escaping the fact that every indidvidual is the sum of his or her parts, and that always plays into how one experiences or visualizes things.
Needless to say we are now experiencing a very critical time in this country when it comes to identity politics, but that's mainky because it's being used in a way to divide, rather than bring us all together.
And that's where this country's motto, 'E pluribus unum' comes in -- out of many one.
We just have to work on that last part a little bit harder.
3
I believe that one of the most salient problems in prefacing statements with identity, is the natural inclination of the recipient to prejudge the message based on their inherent stereotyping of the messenger. If I began reading this article knowing that it was written by Joe Smith a conservative talk show host, Alberto Torres an undocumented immigrant, or Rashida a Muslim engineer I am sorry to admit that my internalization of the message would be different. I might consciously struggle to overcome this bias, but my perception of the validity and credibility of the statements might be altered. What we need to do as a society is create an anonymous, somehow identity neutral way to view idealogy and dialogue. Unfortunately, I have an internal algorithm created by my life's experiences that may not reflect who I want to be, what where I have been. I have not had interactions with many Muslim engineers, but I have interacted frequently wit afffluent white males as I grew up in a Suburban predominantly white neighborhood. I don't want the next generation to have to consciously struggle to counter their initial assumptions. I want them to judge all messengers equally, and assess their message based on its content and merit only. It seems the best way to achieve this is to eliminate an identity preface or initial byline, and simply communicate as humans, not subsets.
1
@JustMe If I began reading this article knowing that it was written by Joe Smith a conservative talk show host, Alberto Torres an undocumented immigrant, or Rashida a Muslim engineer I am sorry to admit that my internalization of the message would be different. I might consciously struggle to overcome this bias, but my perception of the validity and credibility of the statements might be altered. "
And that is precisely the problem with "speaking as a..."
This opinion piece reads like something that could have been printed in National Review. That we are reading it in the NYT, and that the author is of Ghananian (and British) descent is sure to confuse a great mass of people who are unsure if they should agree with it, or react in rageful horror.
"
As a complex biological entity, I wish to advocate for the protection of my fellow complex biological entities , not only those in the plant and animal kingdoms, but the Fungi, Monerans, and Protists, as well. That's my version of healthy "identity politics."
2
In Foucault's late lectures he goes over the idea of "parrhesia," which in a nutshell is speaking from one's complex subjectivity, and in so doing, taking a risk. Like the author of this piece, Foucault advocated speaking from one's idiosyncratic perspective, and laying that out for possible dissection in the polis. There is a risk inherent to speaking from a deep and complex subjectivity.
Richard Rorty had a similar though slightly more American suggestion for speech acts: discard the notion of Truth: "take care of freedom and truth takes care of itself." As I interpret his maxim, speaking freely from your subjective perspective initiates conversations that in concert describe and improve the world.
So those interested in contributing to a social and political dialogue should speak freely from their subjectivity without regard to any capital T "Truth." Any "Truth" smacks of orthodoxy, and repression of freedom.
There are corollaries in Gramsci's "organic" intellectuals, in James Hillman's "active imagination," and in De Certeau's descriptions of inner discourse - what he called "mystics" - the inner system of sorting and sussing one's experience.
What is peculiar and extremely American, is that in the process of "putting it out there," speakers are in effect testing their ideas in the marketplace, where the value of one's ideas is weighed. For reference on this aspect, and to sum it all up, I recommend a dip into Bakhtin and the carnivalesque.
4
@smokepainter Nice piece. I wish I had written it. Thanks.
@Daniel12 thanks so much!
As a white woman who tries to move through the world as an antiracist, and works for a much-needed equitable world, I find it important and useful to name race and my position in conversations about race. However well-meaning I think and hope I am as an individual, I come from a group in our culture that has historically held power and privilege--so my perspective, however well-meaning, is that of someone who has come from generations that have held and upheld this privilege. Being white is not and should not be considered the norm or the default. So long story short, as much as I or you or anyone else might want to be seen simply as an individual, free of the matrix of race complexities, we cannot entirely be free of it. That's why I find it useful and necessary to name my position and perspective. There are no neutral parties in a society-wide systemic racism.
Score one for getting it right. We are all the intersection of who we were born as and what we have experienced since that birth. Thank you, Professor!
5
An argument that relies on the identity of its proponent for its force abandons reason and instead embraces emotion. E.g.:
“In reality, Mr. Trump was a walking disaster as a businessman for much of his life. This is not just my opinion. Warren Buffett said as much this past week.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/opinion/sunday/trump-the-bad-bad-busi...
Whither substance? Since when has “so-and-so said so” been the final authority on an issue?
And of course, Buffett is hardly a paragon of the good businessman, cheerleading Wells Fargo management as they defrauded and fleeced five million customers and foreclosed on hundreds of customers whom they had defrauded.
2
Charles Blow used to write about race here (now he writes solely about his contempt for Trump); and among those of us who would react to his ruminations and who happened to be white, you’d often see commenters opening the comment with some throwaway “As a white man …” Me, I never did that: I just waded in. When you’re incandescent, complexion is unnecessary distraction from transcendental truth.
I was hoping this op-ed would illuminate the dangers of too much focus on identity in our society – how it separates us rather than unites us; but it appears to be merely a pedantic lecture on “intersectionality”, subordination and a woke understanding of true identity, its many constituent parts and how they interact to make … a black lesbian, for example. And ON “intersectionality”, you can always tell when an emerging intellectual elite seeks to herald its emergence – they invent language that is identified with them.
Clearly, few of us are just one thing, but I have some sympathy for a person who wishes to react to a stated observation or analysis but feels insecure in doing so without first declaring the personal attributes that others might wish to evaluate before granting street cred to offer the reaction. People would save so much time and angst if they simply stated the gist of their ramblings – the quality of the arguments will determine the cred … or won’t.
And, frankly, I don’t believe that they’re arrogating some power to speak for an “identity” by use of “As a”.
3
I may never understand what it is like to be targeted due to the colour of my skin but I can speak to the fear of being harassed and assaulted due to my gender. Due to limited personal experience and limited capacity for compassion, many assume they are the the standard for how the world works. The ‘experts’ are still claiming animals don’t feel pain. The personal is political : what people speak about concerning identity and experience is not imaginative paranoia. I am saddened by the commentators whose take away from this is justification for their lack of compassion and understanding of the ‘other’
@Merrell Gerber Um.. No experts are claiming animals don't feel pain. Investigate the scientific literature in this regard.
The--to me--obvious thing is to take each person you encounter as a new person about whom you can't make any assumptions and start out by giving them the benefit and treating them with kindness and respect. So many today give others' a blank stare or a wall of indifference that it's amazing how much you can help others with a simple smile, look them in the eye and simply acknowledge their humanity. Yes, I know there are people who have issues that make it wiser to simply avoid eye contact in order to avoid unnecessary harm, unfortunately many of them on our streets and on subways, the castaways of a society that won't take care of them, but they are often easy to identify, and we all need to stay safe. Apologies to those who may see me as a Pollyanna, but I'm trying to establish a baseline for myself. Maybe it's because I grew up in a mixed-race (is there such a thing as a race?), diverse environment, but again, please take each new person as they come, and stop with the labels, already.
2
I'm so confused.
I keep reading that we need more directors, childrens' book authors, curators, head chefs, people in Congress, the Senate, military leaders, teachers, bankers, CEOs, philosophy professors, medical school faculty, law firm partners, STEM employees--you name it--are of some gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation / identity, parenting status, age group.
Are not all these designations are expected to provide "as a" perspective?
Appiah is right about how identifying yourself in these multiple ways can immediately minimize or magnify what you have to say, depending upon your audience. This isn't good, even if it lends more credence to your argument because it misses the point of being human -- that we don't have to be black or white or gay or female or male or transgender to understand another person's pain or anger or any of the other emotions they may be feeling. The more we embrace this sort of thinking, the more we alienate the people whose respect or understanding we seek to gain. It's insulting to me when people think I can't understand, simply because I've not walked a mile in their shoes. I have & I can. All I have to do is use my imagination. Appiah provides an excellent example of how the thinking has infiltrated his own mind in the statement he made about how sexism in the 1950s "kept middle-class white women at home". There is the implicit assumption here that all these women wanted to work and weren't allowed. Speaking "as a" middle class white woman with children in the 1990s, I didn't want to work outside the home because I was already working in it. He's embraced the notion that my role of caregiver/mother was somehow a diminishment. But it wasn't. I consider it the most important role/job of my life, in all societies, & the most satisfying. What irony! These are the pitfalls of identity politics, purity tests, & collective thinking. Antidote: Let's be more human.
1
Pre-judging or stereotyping individuals, including yourself, based on immutable characteristics such as race and gender, is the definition of racism and sexism. Many, many factors make each of us who we are, and reducing individual people to group identities is degrading, misleading, and prejudiced. The identity politics boom is damaging interpersonal relations and increasing polarization. Even when well intentioned, it is wrong both morally and factually. It is ironic that, in the name of progressivism, this trend is resurrecting racist and sexist categorizations which we are otherwise struggling so hard to overcome.
22
As a [you can assume correctly from my byline and location some of my identity], it is probably naive and privileged of me to say this, but I think the comments here re: unifying ourselves and creating communities based on common values or even more basically, our shared humanity, are stellar. People are people. Living in an incredibly diverse place like NYC for a decade brought this home for me. Diversity can actually unify us; we're all one single thing - human beings - which by definition and nature, means no two of us are the same.
3
Great piece ..concept needs to be repeated to oneself every time we get it into our heads that "we" are special.
4
As the footnote states, Anthony Appiah is speaking as a professor of philosophy at New York University and the author of a forthcoming book on the subject. He could easily have begun this essay with an "as a" stating that himself. Like so many professors of philosophy, he seems to think this makes him a philosopher, and like so many philosophers, his circular logic leads nowhere. The "a" in "as a" denotes that the speaker is speaking for only one person, him or herself. Whatever follows "as a" simply gives some information about the speaker (I do admit that "white male" is probably redundant). Only a philosophy professor could take that to mean that the speaker had appointed him or herself spokesperson for the entire group. Yeah, I would have flunked Dr. Appiah's course. See: RevolutionOfReason.com
@RLB
No, the "as a..." does not simply give some information. No one ever offers a political opinion prefaced with, "as someone with a size 11 shoe". Mentioning their racial/gender, etc identity is intended to confer some special weight to that person's opinion.
1
Representative action and the misrepresentation of self-effacing identity politics - you must point to the question of privilege. Some cannot begin a declaration of “for myself...” when, “who will listen” largely depends on equal access. Representative action is essential and an attack using “identity politics” as a sword should be used carefully. If you have the mic, make sure you know what pertains to you and what pertains to the group you want to represent. If you do not have any mic, let us hope there are groups that understand the issues that affect you of course, but also affect the demographic you belong to...
1
This op-ed recalls "In My Father's House," Appiah's first book. Like this op-ed, it remains a classic of inspired philosophical self-reflection.written before his fame as a scholar
In “speaking as…” there is a difference between speaking “as for a group”, and speaking “as from the perspective of a member of a group.” The article mostly addresses speaking “for” and is insightful and helpful in this regard. I agree with the author’s contentions in regards to speaking “for.” However, I believe that self-identification can be useful when speaking “from” for conveying to the listener a little more about what the speaker believes shapes the stated opinions. In addition, sometimes we speak “from” a position that is accepted by society to carry authority. If I hear, “Speaking as a carpenter your shelves might collapse” – I know to pay special attention. Indeed, some socially regulated identifications carry specific legal and ethical obligations. A Canadian nurse was recently sanctioned for prefacing comments on social media, with “Speaking as a nurse…” The incident is discussed in a recent copy of the American Journal of Nursing (vol. 117,n.9).
1
Hand in glove with the "as a" assertion are the deniers: "if you haven't walked in my shoes..." (been black, been raped, been a woman, been a man, been whatever) "then you just don't get it" -- most exclusionary words of this century, dismissing any attempt at empathy and understanding as impossibly inauthentic.
Lately I've been loving (get ready, don't get huffy) ... So You Think You Can Dance, where contestants are pushed to cross over out of their comfort zones, out of their primary style of training, into multiple other styles that they are asked to learn and master and project as they grow, both as dancers and as individuals. Did the midwest blond ballerina give a credible hip-hop? Did the black B-boy street dancer give a credible latin salsa? Did the trans dancer who started the season in drag give a credible male partnering in a romantic pas de deux? (yes!!!). And did they really "get into it" or did they seem stilted, superficial, and inauthentic? "Work harder, you're almost there" is one of the most hopeful critiques I've ever heard as these young people are asked to show that they aren't merely the product of their limitations, weaknesses, and experiential deficits.
So much we could learn from that!
Speaking for myself in red Orange County, CA, I've noticed
that Republican politicians love pollution as evidenced by
their tearing down of sensible, thoughtful, well researched
environmental protection regulations.
3
I have a problem with the "me first" point of view. It's not just about me, or you. Nothing is just about me, or you. We have to be aware of what's going on with the rest of the population, and try to walk a mile in other peoples' shoes. Take off the blinders, and have a gander in your rear, and side, view mirrors. NOT doing that is why we are so extremely divided.
3
What a strange piece. You interrupt a person after four words having no idea what he was going to say. Maybe he was going to say: as a white man I cannot be 100% sure how it feels to be a black man. Maybe he was going to say: as a white man I prefer black & white photography. Maybe he was going to say: as a white man I am not allowed to sing aloud rap lyrics. Maybe, maybe. Maybe as people we need to hear what other people are saying?
2
It always seemed to me that the "as a" was a way to inoculate your point from outside
6
Great piece. The problem of the “White working class voter” (a third of whom voted for Hillary) being shortened to just “working class voter” ( TWO thirds whom voted for Hillary) is just one not-so-subtle way that lazy editing leads readers to make very different conclusions as two who the working class in this country really are. Hint: not just white people or Trump voters.
4
I think much of the time people say "as a __" it's not so much to assert authority but to give important context -- most often because the conversation is online, and there's no other way to tell if you're a dog... or whatever.
Also, it's shorter than splitting things apart: "I'm a ___, and a ___. Here's what I think about that..."
@kgeographer
The point is that the context of identity is irrelevant, since various people with that same identity will have differing opinions. Therefore, the opinion itself should be considered on its merits, not based on who is offering it.
6
@max
And my point is that context is never irrelevant. To wit, the byline of this op-ed reads:
Mr. Appiah is a professor of philosophy.
If I respond to a controversial comment about race, it would be useful to know what mine is, just as you would if we were face-to-face. It is a data point. If I mean to say I'm trying to speak for all people of my race, I should say so. Of course it is preposterous that I would even try.
@kgeographer
A professor of philosophy is a person with specific training, which is not like the kind of racial or gender identity we're discussing. If you respond to a controversial comment about race, you might be biased as a member of that race, or biased as a non-member. That's why signaling one's group identity is not useful.
Love it! Let’s all be storytellers rather than sociologists. The America I know and love lives in multiplicity and dies in a few tired categories.
2
To affect change in our society, you need a group with an identity. You need a critical mass of like-minded individuals. We all need to be in lock-step to tackle the problems of global warming, bigotry, racism, etc etc etc. We need consistency.
But even with that important point, I think that Prof. Appiah has it right. When you're sitting down with Joe over a cup of whatever ethanol-based beverage is your drink of choice, it's important to remember that we are individuals.
Maybe the broader point is to remember to put down the weight of the world occasionally, and remember to just be yourself.
3
htg--We ARE individuals, no doubt about that, but in the end, we are ants in the universe, of the moment, hardly noticeable, and not very important, in the long range scheme of things. Carpe diem. Do what you can, today. The planet will be here, long after we are gone.
A corollary is when someone says, "You don't know what it's like to be black, gay, woman, etc." When I am not.
I am always tempted to retort, "You don't know either."
4
Great essay. Great idea. Speak for yourself, because in the end, that's all you can address with real authority.
Just one thought. "Speaking as an (insert identity of choice here) man, I ...." is all too often a response that is prompted by feeling pigeon holed into that identity box, sometimes against one's will.
What black man would volunteer to be subject to the harassment, and potential lethality of too many police or store manager encounters?
What white man wouldn't immediately bristle at being lumped in with all others to receive the "racism is YOUR original sin" brand?
For this great idea to work, two things need to happen. We need to be willing to cede our own personal group identifications, good and bad. And we need to let go of our preconceptions (many benign, but some that are odious) as we rate the people we know, and the ones we newly meet.
Good fences often just block the view, without making good neighbors. They obscure things both ways, too.
As an old white man, I grow very tired of seeing and hearing others stare at me in an accusing way and then speak of the Trump government as my fault -- "Old white man, you and your kind did this!" No, in fact, I did not. Trump and his ilk are very far from my beliefs and what I have voted to support. Much more of this, however, and I may be driven to change my registration and follow it with a generous campaign contribution. One can tolerate just so much false accusation! Declare youself my enemy, and I may soon become one.
58
@Penseur Patience.
1
@Penseur I understand your frustration, but that is not a particularly rational response. Why would you align yourself with someone whom you regard as very far from your beliefs just to spite a few people who are accusing you of being a Trump supporter (or who you think are accusing you--how do you know the thoughts of someone just looking at you?)? I hope that you will instead just assert your beliefs and not be deterred by idiots.
At least don't punish the rest of us due to the actions of others--which is exactly what you're complaining about happening to you!
1
Thank you!!!! Speaking for myself, I love Prof. Appiah's piece. Both your writing and the points you make are the best possible argument for not cancelling my NYT subscription after Bret Stephens' most recent op ed and the NYT's decision to hire and defend Ms. Leong. It's honest, looks at a touchy subject in a way that's respectful, meaningful and urges all of us to find our own voice. Bravo!
3
I have an unfortunate tendency to preface my posts here with "as a brown woman". It's a way of presenting my credentials, like "trust me, I'm a doctor." I think I'll henceforth be a Southern Red-eyed Squeaker - which is a type of cicada.
1
I've never cared for the practice of commenters using identifiers to bolster their arguments, either as a preface or worse, as a suffix ("BTW, I'm black....etc, etc.")
9 times out of ten, when such identifier is used, you can bet the commenter is about to say something that goes against the grain of what such a person who identifies with that group would usually be expected to say.
First of all, we have no way of confirming you are either black, white, gay, or such and such. Here you are simply a name or screen name and maybe an icon, none of which sincerely identify who you are or what you're about. You could literally be anyone from anyplace. Or you may not even be human at all. As such, you should not be claiming to any sort of identity or authority for that matter (I'm a doctor, or I'm a veteran). If you truly are that person, then you should start off by providing the logical and sound arguments that a person with that experience would know. The power of arguments come from their persuasiveness and logic, not solely from the "authority" from which they issue (which is itself considered a form of fallacy.)
Second, even if we could confirm that you belong to said group, like the author said, your views are still your own, and may not reflect what the group wants as a whole. You may well be the odd duck out. If so, then you owe an explanation to not only your intended audience but your self-identified group as well WHY you think your opinion is justified.
2
AJ Garcia--Not sure it's proper to dismiss the unique difficulties faced by each of these "groups." It may be impossible to correct those ills, if we fail to identify each of them, regardless of our common humanity.
1
I prefer, "speaking as a human being..."
3
I think Appiah misses a point. I've never taken a person beginning a conversation with their identity has a claim to represent a group. No group is a monolith. The reason to bring up identity is because it's tied to your experience in a society that was built upon racist institutions and beliefs. It is to show the disparities that exist in our society through an anecdote, just one example in a larger conversation.
There will be shortcomings bc there are differences in any group. I'm apart of the Latinx community. There is a vast number of differences from culture, background, sex, etc. However, there are also similarities and shared experiences and struggles because we live in a society that doesn't respect differences and is based on white supremacy. Other cultures aren't embrace and immigrants are forced to shun there backgrounds if they are not white. Identity can be a powerful force to empower vulnerable groups with our collective power and the contribution of our individual stories in the larger narrative.
I know many have complaints about what they call identity politics, but this country was built on identity. Slavery, segregation, white flight, disinvestment from communities of color, etc are all forms of identity politics. The anxiety over demographic changes in America is identity politics. However, most people refuse to see this because white identity has always been seen as the standard. A blank slate that is the absence of identity when in fact it is not.
145
Alfred--Excellent comment! thanks!
@Alfred Appiah is not missing the point. Neither are any of the other commentators here who are suspicious of identity politics, most of whom appear to be members of minority groups (like me). We are pointing out that retreat into tribal groups just accomplishes what the white oppressors wanted all along: to separate us. It validates them, not us. None of us is stupid. We see what the majority tribe have done. We just don't think doing it back to them is a winning strategy.
You say this country was built on identity. That is exactly the problem.
1
@Alfredi had the exact same reaction. you articulated it very well.
Identify is sometimes credibility depending on the subject being addressed. My purpose in commenting here is mostly to point out that the term "intersectionality" is sometimes used to marginalize some marginalized people from other marginalized people, generally along racial lines, regardless of wealth or social class. Multivariate intersectionality exists in everything.
1
These days, I often identify myself as a Medicare age liberal Democrat retired woman engineer who was denied employment because of her gender before the days of affirmative action. Perhaps I don’t mention every single one of those identity groups at the same time, in my case: white, female, professional, senior citizen, baby boomer, liberal, and Democrat. But, I have been given no choice but to be up front about who I am by a society in which identity politics has overwhelmed us. And, yes, conservatives, we’re both guilty of it.
You know what? I never had to do that thirty or forty years ago. In fact, I made an effort to de-emphasize that I was woman doing a so-called man’s job. I just wanted us all to work together as engineers, without my being any different than the rest of the drones sitting at their desks pumping out calculations.
Now, the number of societal ills I’m being blamed for because of my “identity” is just staggering. The baby boomers have destroyed society. White people are all oppressors. Women don’t have the aptitude to be scientists and are using affirmative action to take men’s jobs away. Want me to continue?
I never imply that I am speaking for all women in any of those categories. I’m merely telling people where I’m coming from, what experiences I, personally, bring to the discussion. Me. Just me. I am not a “self-appointed representative” of anything.
So, I’m now to be judged for explaining who I am. I'll add that to the list.
193
@CF
As the member of a social group Democrats, you have endorsed policies that have emphasized identity over most everything else. Democrats have succeeded, and continue to succeed, by pandering to sub-groups and bringing them together as a force.
1
@CF I commented after you and before reading yours which is much better. You could have left off that last paragraph, though. You made your case beautifully.
@CF
But pattern recognition helps to categorize and classify in order to organize our thoughts.
It's reasonable and fair to share who you are. Because intersecting identities do determine, in part, a person's perspective, life experience and privilege (or lack thereof).
If there's an article on looking for work, the experience of being an overweight 50 year old white woman is different than a 30 year old white man who is fit. Even if they're both skilled IT workers looking for similar work. That's not fair, but it's true.
We are judged too often on our race, gender presentation, age, appearance, height, weight, etc. It influences our perspective in life.
1
This article strikes me as speaker absorbed. The reason to say “as a” is not necessarily about the speaker asserting their membership in a group identity, but it is often a useful tool to clearly draw the listeners attention to the way in which they will interpret the message through the lens of whatever baggage the listener assigns to that group. As a man, many would call this mansplaining. As a woman, my message cannot be dismissed so easily.
Sure, trying to speak for the group, instead of as a member of a group, is problematic. But we never speak for ourselves as the listener is always hearing us from the context they presume attaches to our identity (whatever they have decided it to be).
8
@New Jersey Knows
"As a man, many would call this mansplaining. As a woman, my message cannot be dismissed so easily."
No one's message should be dismissed or accepted based on who they are. Judge the message on its own merits.
I often wonder why people feel such a need to label themselves; at times it seems aggressive. It's great to know yourself and accept who you are, but it's also important to remember that there are dire topics affecting our future as a species that we should be discussing together regardless of what herd we think we have to announce belonging to.
5
Certainly, the perspective of being marginalized is valuable, but developing a unified narrative of what we are working toward and wish to achieve as Americans and defining goals that draw us together, are more so. We are very divided on fundamental concepts that other modern countries settled long ago to their marked advantage.
3
@Jane Gundlach Many modern countries, European countries in particular, solved their resource and population problems by colonizing North America.
I'm certainly sensitive to Dr. Appiah's argument and find it useful, just as he indicates the non-monolithic nature of any one subject position represented in the "as a" construction, we need to also recognize that the "as a" itself is monolithic in its meaning or intent.
As a middle-class white cisgender male, for example, I often use the "as a" not to establish authority, but precisely for the purposes of acknowledging and highlighting the limitations of and social forces at work on my perspective.
"As a white male, I wouldn't pretend to be able to fully grasp..." or "As a straight white male, I have never been put in a position where I had to defend..." are two examples of moments the "as a" construction cedes authority or aims to (begin to) account for places of privilege in my experience, both with the intend of deeping an empathy of understanding.
Surely, I would concede that this can also--like so many other rhetorical devices--can be twisted so as to feign that acknowledgment in an attempt to reclaim a podium from which to speak, but babies and bathwater come to mind here.
As someone who seeks to speak in thoughtful and careful ways and to avoid commandeering someone's right to speak for themselves, where I really see the value in Dr. Appiah's injunction is not in stopping or limiting the use of "as a," but rather in bringing awareness to the nuance of what we convey when we use it.
15
People affiliate with groups. It’s a preference that humans exhibit which leads them to perceive people as belonging or not to their group. It is common for people to strongly identify with people in their group that they really don’t like and to reject outsiders who they would like if they knew them. This strange way of seeing others provided a lot of advantages in terms of perpetuating the species.
In our modern and cosmopolitan way of life a funny thing happens, we affiliate with many groups, which means that our preferences can result in great confusing conflicts and contradictions. We can shift from identifying with one group or another as we shift our own perspectives. But not many of us can see ourselves in the wider context as we relate to many groups, we tend to see things from one point of view at a time. The rest is out of sight out of mind.
Race does not exist as we have been taught to think of it and it matters far more than it should because we see it as our groups see it. Gender and sexual identity are not determined by genes alone and they extend over ranges for most people but most groups what them to be binary and so affiliating with a group determines ones views about it. Identity is a consequence of belonging and as we affiliate with different groups so does our identity differ.
I feel, (as a white man), that being in the millennial cohort I often need to preface any kind of sociological opinion with that aforementioned phrase. It's not my attempt to speak for all white men. It's my compulsion to apologize for being a white man who has an opinion.
Certainly I agree with the main message of this article, but I don't use the phrase as a qualifier. I use it as a precaution. Failure to acknowledge my whiteness is perceived by some as exactly that.
4
@ML ... yes, life is hard.
@ML
I think that is part of the point of the article. You shouldn't have to preface everything you say with, "as a white man." The fact that you feel you need to is a result of identity politics being shoved down your throat. Ideas are what should matter, not identities. If someone has a terrible idea, call it out as such, the identity of the speaker of those ideas is irrelevant (in most cases).
After reading through many of these comments I wish the author would have focused more on the listener. Personally, I've never used "as a" this or that to establish authority. I use it to provide context. But in providing that context, I might lose half of my audience. That's the point, "oh, he's white. He has no authority to speak on this subject despite that good idea he just shared." Or, "oh, he's a black man, he has no authority to speak on women's issues, despite the fact that I agree with every opinion he shared."
2
Intersectionality is the least concise way to understand people and their represented differences. It was an intellectual laziness that needed to categorize individuals, so as to understand them as a group, therefore making it easier to make broad sweeping generalizations about said group. Individuals are infinitely more complex, beyond experience, there is also genetics, and how they commingle with each other, and play out in a myriad of ways. The best way to understand each other is not to label, define, and categorize. It is to listen and observe. Yes, it's slow, and does not offer the ego loving superiority of making a generalized understanding. It does however offer a deeper understanding, respect, and love of your fellow humans. You might also find yourself with a deeper sense of contentment, in actuality "knowing" someone. Don't short-change yourself, you'll be better for it.
12
"Identity" is a loaded word and concept. I could be put in several "boxes", but prefer to function as a human being, in the moment. If more went that way, it might be much more difficult to polarize in a world where the "poles" were fuzzy and flexible.
1
It is indeed absurd to consider that any one individual could speak for a group as a whole. This argument is well crafted in Appiah’s essay.
And yet...it seems rather disingenuous that in the very last paragraph he admits that the “as a” statement does serve a purpose and therefore will not be disappearing any time soon.
What purpose? Interestingly enough, he uses it part-way through—the “as a” experience marker. His experience as a gay man allows his voice to be lifted up among the sea of pontificators.
Were I to speak about a military lifestyle matter, my experience “as a” veteran, a military spouse, and “military brat” surely enhances the listeners viewpoint.
It seems to me that the problem isn’t using “as a”, but rather when it is used to shut down opposing viewpoints or denigrate those outside the identity group.
35
As a New York Times Reader, I feel I should point out that this lead-in can provide an explanation as to why one joins a discussion. That usage is useful. As a person who never speaks for any of my many demographics (straight, middle aged dad of British origins with a BA in English who works for a living) I decline to be spoken for by anyone I did not vote for.
1
@Rupert
And, sometimes, not even for those I did vote for.
Within my hearing range, at least, the phrase "as a white man" has most often been used *not* as an attempt to speak with authority for a large group of homogenous people, but rather with an acute awareness of both individual subjectivity and the splintered nature of that group. Above all, it's been meant to shed light on the limitations of that particular perspective.
Let me give you an example: "As a white man, I haven't always been keyed in to the pervasiveness of institutional racism." The speaker wants to emphasize his lack of knowledge, *not* his authority. What I'm *not* hearing is a strident insistence that all white men are oblivious to the perfidy of racism. What I am hearing is an acknowledgment of his own lack of knowledge and a desire to understand other perspectives.
That said, I found Mr. Appiah's piece to be highly entertaining. He's right to call our attention to anything and everything said on a macro scale and the sneaky implications of catch phrases that can dull our critical facilities.
Listener beware, indeed.
25
@rjk I hear it as "all white men are oblivious to the perfidy of racism." I hadn't noticed it prior to reading this article, but when faced with similar questions, I generally answer along the lines of "I can only speak for myself, but I haven't always been keyed in to the pervasiveness of institutional racism."
I understand that it could be intended or read either way, but I'm focusing on the listener. I try not to make assumptions when listening; assuming the speaker's words, language, and structure are appropriately clear. To me, "as a white man," making no assumptions as to the speakers intent beyond his actual words, means he's speaking for white men. Had he said, "as a man" it wouldn't make sense either way.
The easiest and most honest way to phrase it would be simply, "I haven't always been keyed in to the pervasiveness of institutional racism." There is no need to apply a group identity. It's refreshing.
4
@Trebor
In a perfect world one would not be willing to share their identity, however in America a country built on racism it is interesting to act as if ones identity doesn't matter since we all view the world via the lens we have been given.
More black / minority women die in childbirth and breast cancer than white women, that is a fact not fiction. It is a fact that most American white people didn't realize that Puerto Rico was part of the United States. It is a fact that America abandoned Puerto Rico when we should of been trying to help them. Fact the President was throwing paper towels at them, would he have done that to people from Woodmere Long Island?.
We all have identities and we should embrace them since white America has told us for decades we don't belong in their world because we are inferior.
Why aren't there enough qualified minorities in key high level positions ? on boards ? where did all the qualified minorities in the Obama administration disappear to? White America is back in charge. So please don't write about how we don't need identities when your a minorities, . We need them to survive in America.
@Trebor
Thanks for your reply. This is a good conversation to have. I can appreciate your point, but in tidying up the language of my example, I wondered if you haven't rather significantly altered the meaning of the original.
"I haven't always been keyed in to the pervasiveness of institutional racism." Yes, that limits the statement to the individual speaker, which is great, if that's what the person wants to say.
But let's say that in his years of living here in America, the speaker has witnessed something of a pattern that he very much wants to call his listener's attention to: namely, that other members of this large amorphous group that he belongs to have sometimes had this same problem, to varying degrees - all the way from Ku Klux Klansmen to liberal professors at Ivy League schools.
That seem to me to be a self-critical and reasonable assertion, or at least one worth pondering - not one that needs censoring. It's an idea perhaps lost in your translation.
This so needed to be said, thank you, Dr. Appiah. I always roll my eyes when someone prefaces some point or other they want to make - particularly in some kind of debate about politics or history - by invoking some aspect of their identity; as if that lends their point some special authority or can insulate them from further challenges from those who might disagree. It stops honest dialogue dead in its tracks, because what can you say? If you tell them that experience and identity does not constitute authority, and remind they do not represent any larger group. then that will lead in a new direction of argument away from the original discussion. Of course, there are some situations where experience and/or identity can give special insight and is valuable to share. But not the way "as a" is often used nowadays. Including, most "problematically," in some streams of academic writing.
7
"As a" can appropriately be used to establish standing prior to making a proclamation. Compare "as a parent of a child in this school" to "as a parent" to "as a concerned citizen/ally". In the first case the speaker establishes standing. In the second case, the speaker assumes standing. In the third case the speaker asserts privilege. The use of "as a" should only be used when a person has actual standing.
Professor Appiah is very sharp indeed. The "as a" introductory phrase serves to claim authority.
But for many of us there seems not to be any other way of claiming authority to speak (outside one's own living room) except asserting that one speaks for a lot of other people, even when this is an exaggeration. The problem is: who will listen?
Appiah, as a philosopher, is merely giving a nuanced account of the problem. He isn't saying he knows how to create equitable authority-to-speak.
4
It depends upon how that lead in is being used. If I can't see you it helps to know what your frame of reference is. If I can see you but you are speaking from an experience that can explain your position, or you are, for example, transgender, that too helps me. In other words, if I don't know the first thing about you, the lead in is a big help. I'm writing this, by the way, as a human being.
9
Qualifiers are often used convey authority to someone who is, approximately, clueless. "As your manager..." or "As someone who spent years in medical school..." is a way to remind someone that they need to accept what they are about to be told.
Using qualifiers to signal one's background in writing for a wide audience can appear to be condescending, often because it is.
5
At my kids' schools, there are now "multicultural days", where kids are supposed to dress up and represent their heritage. For some kids—who are actually first generation immigrants—I can see how this is important. I legitimately would like my kids to be exposed to other cultures, and learn about them. However, I forbid my kids from going to school dressed up as "Irish" or "German" children. They just go as Americans, because that's what they are. Our ancestors have been here since the 1840s. They know nothing about the German, Irish, Dutch, etc. cultures that their distant relatives left because of fear, poverty, and persecution, and are as far removed from these countries as possible without living on Mars. I feel the same way about the current obsession with genealogical research; it only ends badly for humanity.
This country is being destroyed, on both sides, by this absurd fascination with "identity." People instead should focus on their common humanity, with a tolerance for any difference, but not a need to highlight these differences as defining characteristics. When this happens, we start talking about only certain people being able to talk "authentically," and enter this absurd debate about "cultural appropriation." We need to be exchanging ideas, not badges. We are better than this.
159
@purpledog Well said! Recently I went to a play. In the back of the program were the usual pages of bios of the actors. One of them, a woman, used hers to give a shout out to her wife for her faithful support. I winced... was this really necessary? Does everyone have to make sure that everyone else knows what box they are in?
1
@purpledog
Good for you for standing up to this PC nonsense. We are not "multi-cultural"! We came from other cultures, we left those other cultures, to become a part of this one. That should be the focus, always.
If people are so worked up about having their heritage be
recognized, they should take it up with whichever ancestor made the decision to leave their home country, and leave the rest of us out of it.
@purpledog
Maybe "multicultural days" at school will help students get more interested in other countries and their culture, like food or music.
Americans are seen as, and to a large part are, pretty ignorant of the larger world around them.
If kids want to be "just Americans"(what ever that is) they might dress like they do every day or put together a costume of a pioneer, or a farmer in overalls (some still are), bring some old photos of grand parents or great grandparents, etc. Maybe there is a photo of great, great grandma dressed in the fashion back in the day in New York, San Francisco, Japan, or Russia. Maybe a Native American child might bring in some bead work, silver work or a hand made basket or photos from a recent pow wow.
There could be a discussion about what being an American means and/or how we are a nation of immigrants who "stole" the land from Native Americans.
The teacher can do some brainstorming in class to see what ideas the students might have about multicultural day. Maybe they will bring rice and beans, sushi, wild rice or pizza to share with the class for a party with a pinata and share some music from Turkey, Kentucky or of Africa.
Kids that "opt out" will still learn some very interesting things & might participate next year. Maybe they will ask about their ethnicity over dinner at home at and learn more about their own family's roots or immigration stories.
"Multicultural day" is a great idea and wonderful learning opportunity.
1
Thanks for this. What a breath of fresh air.
It's hard enough for people to determine how race/gender/class/sexual orientation/ethnicity/etc might factor into how they are treated by others, much less how they themselves behave, without also trying to pretend that any of those factors entitle them to speak for everyone who shares that part of their self description.
7
By stopping Joe "right there" you short-circuit the entire point of the "as a" clause. I would venture to say that very few people consider their identity a rigid, unchanging thing, even from one moment to the next. It's all about context: Joe might say: "As a white man, I don't think I can fully grasp the Black experience in America", or: "As an NPR lover, I worry about the reduction in funding for public broadcasting", or "As a PBR drinker, after six beers, it all tastes the same to me", etc., etc.
15
@mijosc
- after 6 PBRs? Plus, you saying that PBR even has a flavor...is very presumptive...
Thank you for this rousing and needed article. I would take just one part of your argument farther and make one contrasting point.
You write: "Because members of a given identity group have experiences that depend on a host of other social factors, they’re not the same." Yes, but even if two people had the same (or highly similar) social factors influencing their experiences, they might still differ widely in their outlooks, attitudes, and ideas. There is more to a thought or view than experience, and more to experience than social factors. All the more reason to "ease up on 'as a.'"
As for the contrasting point, while it's rash for anyone to speak for a demographic group, we still try and hope to reach people beyond ourselves, to speak not only for ourselves, but also for others--or, if not to speak for them, to speak to and with them in a way that goes beyond the perfunctory. The catch is that we really don't know who our audience and conversants will be. They may not be the ones we expect. So, perhaps another phrase might be, "Speak without delimiting your audience; listen without delimiting the speaker."
2
If politicians and media would stop playing identity politics, the people would stop role playing identity politics. The left is being played by political and economic machines that influence our thoughts.
9
@Jacob
The Left is being played? Are you excluding the Right? Cause if you are...you are playing right into and fulfilling the view of those not on the right of those on the Right. All in lock-step with der Fuhrer....
I wish democratic party politicians would read this, and drop their long-held obsession with identity groups, and maybe focus on issues of concern to all citizens who are middle class - what a large demographic! But that may be too much to hope for - after all, politicians are all part of the elite whether they're blue or red.
23
@george eliot
Come on George...leaving out the Repubs is like leaving the bread and jelly out of the PB&J. Its the GOP been playing the identity game for decades now...and Trump rode it into the WH. Its behind so much of his policies now, and what arouses his base...
The GOP forced the Left towards identity politics, because the Right was vilifying and not representing so many marginalized communities.
Speaking as a New York Times reader, this a terrific essay. Pieces like this are why I subscribe.
6
This is great. It illuminates the complexity of identity and questions what has become all too common in cultural and political discussions. There's one piece here that's missing. Identity can certainly inform an individual's ideas but it cannot be used to validate them. We need to learn to evaluate what follows "As a ______" on it's own merits. The validity of the statement that follows can never be proved by the identity of the speaker alone.
1
"Go Ahead Speak for yourself?" is nonsense. Some opinions are valorized while others are marginalized. Some identities are valued and their expression is encouraged (e.g. feminism and the gay agenda). Other identities (e.g. disabled status or persons of color) are dismissed as not being intellectually fashionable by the academy. Whenever I had mentioned my experience as a disabled person, precisely zero non-disabled people have any interest in hearing this reality that affects some 17% of Americans. It doesn't matter that persons with disabilities are the poorest in the United States; unless this status can be weaponized against the preferred target, no one has an interest in it. Conversely, this country has had to endure endless rounds of narcissistic navel-gazing by "sexual minorities" and women since Trump got elected.
1
@Uncommon Wisdom "precisely zero non-disabled people have any interest in hearing this reality that affects some 17% of Americans."
On what do you base this assertion? "precisely zero." Really?
And what is up with the scare quotes around sexual minorities?
1
@Julia Holcomb Based on living as a disabled person since the age of 12 I can tell you with absolute certainty: no one cares how difficult the challenges disabled people face are. They aren't conditioned to care; disabled people don't have fancy flags or slogans; disabled people are poorer than other groups. Therefore, there is no public interest in helping them.
Regarding the use of quotation marks around the invented term "sexual minorities," either you are a minority from birth or you aren't. You don't get to express your "true self" and then complain when people are uncomfortble around you.
Everyone has a story. Give every stranger a chance, and find out. They're interesting.
4
The array of identities from which to choose continues to multiply. The down side to this is that people will naturally gravitate to the most numerous, therefore most powerful, group. This leaves the minority groups even more disempowered. I don't see an end to this short of a conflict between nation-states as majorities other than white get fed up and start dishing out what they have received. Hello, China, India and Africa?
2
Identity politics in the U.S., that an individual really has no voice unless speaking as a member of this or that racial or ethnic or religious or what have you group?
The U.S. is obviously seeing a collapse of the view that a person can stand on his or her own, have an identity not mostly locked into this or that group type identity. Collectivism of various types is on the rise. People are collapsing into groups and they are being led by people whose intellectual reasoning is largely of the psychological warfare/military type: Divide and conquer your enemy, do not let the actual individuals who make up your enemy cohere into a powerful group identity, view themselves as predominantly a racial or ethnic or religious or what have you identity, but shatter them into ineffective in thought and action individuals, have them choke on their individual selves.
Along with attempting to divide and conquer your most profound enemy we have the mentality of uniting as best as possible with groups who might, or better, have an actual grievance with your enemy, thus identity politics in the U.S. is the nation in actual state of war, because all it takes for war to be declared is to manifest the type of thinking which leads eventually to outbreak of physical hostilities.
I'm thinking now how difficult it was for thinkers such as Goethe, Cervantes, et. al. to appear--European phenomenons in Nietzsche's words beyond nationality and other group identity. Where are such people now?
1
A Sikh man was attacked in California recently and many solely concerned with identity politics inferred in the confrontation may have been shocked to find out that he was a Republican.
It was a disheartening episode but speaks to your point.
The idea of “identity” is inherently absurd. Every human being is so chaotically and undefinably complex, not to mention always in flux, that no mature human being should ever delude him or her “self” with the ridiculous fantasy that they or anyone else HAS an “identity.” There is of course the human identity we all share, the one great Dead White European Men writers were all fixated on, just like great writers everywhere. We are all identically mortal, however variously we die. And all absolutely equally helpless against time and chance. Facts that narcissistic, one-upping group “identity” assertions can be useful in helping our vanity momentarily forget.
10
Yes. Also this emphasis on identity can drown out other issues. For instance, we see a lot of (deserved) attention given to sexual or racial harassment in the workplace, but not much attention to supervisors who are equal-opportunity jerks.
10
Very nicely written, and fair: a rarity nowadays.
6
This essay misses a key point. When a commenter responds to a highly polemical piece by prefacing his comments with, for example, "as a white man", it adds context to his comments. Suppose a black author advances the argument that whites are insensitive to the plight of blacks. We get two comments: 1. "As a black man, I couldn't agree more." 2. "As a white man, I couldn't agree more." The racial identification adds useful context to the comment. This is not always the case. For example, this comment would not be enhanced if I had stated my race.
4
Ah . . . no.
While the general point of this essay has some merit, Professor Appiah neglects an important use of "as a . . ." I use it frequently, introducing my point of view with "as a white man," or "as an older white man."
I don't do this because I think I'm the "head white man." I do it to distinguish myself from, not identify with, the "white man" group.
I am a raging progressive, a feminist, an anti-racist and a supporter of all things "politically correct."
I believe it is helpful to distinguish myself from the stereotype of the "older white man" group so that readers or listeners don't presume to lump me with another "identity" group.
It serves precisely the opposite purpose of what Professor Appiah warns against.
4
@Barking Doggerel
It's the content of your argument that would persuade people, if that's your goal. Mentioning your idenity does nothing to help your argument if you're talking to someone who is open minded and willing to have their mind changed by facts to support your position.
1
@Barking Doggerel
Same difference. By identifying yourself as a white man speaking for non-whites and women, you are shoring up your argument based on who you are. Your opinion should stand on its own merits.
@Barking Doggerel
If you're frequently introducing your point of view with "as a white man," or, "as an older white man," aren't you literally identifying yourself with the "white man" group?
If you want to distinguish yourself from that group, wouldn't it be better to say, "as a raging progressive, a feminist, an anti-racist and a supporter of all things politically correct," etc.?
Also, this very thing might bite you. You, a man, are identifying as a feminist. While I think that's reasonable, those who hold firmly to identity might not think you have the authority, as a man, to speak for feminists, which is kind of the point.
1
Hear hear. We are not at the point where identity doesn’t matter at all,but we should be at a point where it does not define or determine the totality of your being.
2
Here here. These constant appeals to racial and sexual identity are problematic on so many levels. First, we're all individuals, and reducing our complex views and experiences to a race mocks freedom of expression and logic itself. Second, where are all the white men supposed to go? Do you really want a society in which everyone identifies themselves primarily with their "tribe"--including white men? Let me assure you, that will not end well.
9
...."Speaking for myself" may do more justice when addressing your words to a given audience than "as a...(yellow, blue, red, green, even black and white)"; how about "as a human fellow being'? Or "as a press representative paid to support (or not) what I'm saying?" Just saying! And a reminder: if we could think, really introspect, before we utter too much nonsense, our credibility might soar as if a kindred spirit were our guide.
2
The hyper identification makes me often cringe and chuckle.
I observe it like some sort of game we're all supposed to play. Every person a cloistered entity of one - unless they have a similar pal they can hang with.
I'm a white male and somehow, without warning or intention, I've become an older white male.
That identify got hung on me just for "staying alive."
(maybe I shouldn't have listened to that BeeGees song so much)
So, I sally down the street or float into a market or a movie or a restaurant (nobody has parties anymore, or at least I'm not getting invited) and my identify meets your identity.
Older white man meets:
Young person (how'd you all get so young!)
Gay or Lesbian person
Person of Color
Transgender person
Person without a home (I ask if I can speak)
Other older person
Person who looks jovial
Person who looks lost
Person who's not yet five (my favorite person)
Persons all.
And I love other persons.
Because they are me and I am them and I'm bound to love them by all I've been taught and how I want to feel.
And, here's my ticket to connecting with almost every person if they look up from there phone or their personal moment:
A warm smile, a friendy wave (I love waving), a simple "Hey!" or a full stop to say hello and chat.
My favorite way to identify and cross that easy bridge from me to you.
Friendly smile… "Hey, how ya doin'"
Works almost every time and I'm always willing to try.
"Love one another."
I can identify.
282
@Paul King that is beautiful. well done.
@Paul King Hi ho, PK!
@Paul King
Loved this, Paul. You clearly know how to brighten a day wherever you go. Your poem would make great lyrics! Thanks!
Speaking for myself, I think the author buried the lede. The last graf should be incorporated into the first few because I fear that some people won't finish this excellent essay and find the take away. It's simple and concise: embrace your "intersections", speak for yourself, stick up for your beliefs, and then walk the walk. If people don't listen to you and respect what you have to say, that's their problem.
114
@JAS - a critical observation.
Speaking as a white, middle-aged male, my only critique of the piece was that Mr. Appiah's entire treatise flows from his presumption: "Typically, it's an assertion of authority.."
However, prefaces of the kind he wants to criticize can equally be used in precisely the opposite fashion - to actually LIMIT the perspective to precisely that of the writer or speaker. Yes, it can be, and is, used to signal authority. But as I demonstrated above, this phrasing can be used to provide boundaries to the perspective I am sharing - achieving the same thing as he suggests in his final paragraph.
Perhaps the final formulation better communicates the intent of the writer or speaker, but it's not the only formulation that works. :)
Yes.
He's asking us not to be habitually stupid, or stupidly habitual.
And then to be ourselves.
@JAS Speaking for myself, I agree. I jumped to the end after a handful of grafs. Just guessing, you must have a journalism background. Me too.
This essay explores the radical notion that a Liberal democracy is founded on the individual. If you break yourself up into enough groups you will arrive at the individual- the most precise identity. Our founding fathers understood that, yet the lessons of the past are soon forgotten.
13
@Zack N
"Our founding fathers understood that, yet the lessons of the past are soon forgotten. "
Our Founding Fathers understood that a republic can thrive only when its voters are educated. That is why the franchise extended originally only to landed whites.
As the republic developed, and as cities and villages created public schools (and children got to them, willy-nilly, and learned), whites who did not own land, women, and blacks were able to get educations, and the franchise was extended -- belatedly, true, but extended it was.
Now that too many Americans of all colors and classes scorn education, more Americans believe in ghosts than in the law of gravity, and entertainment trumps learning the natural sciences, perhaps we should reconsider the franchise and find a way for only rational, decently educated people to elect same.
Amen to that. I am so far beyond caring about someone's sexual orientation, age, race, etc. Especially when all factions like to drag out someone whose identity challenges the assumptions.
Sometimes I can hardly hear the person's perspectives on issues due to the blinding effect of the announcement of their identity.
Thanks for this great opinion piece.
18
Great, thought-provoking article. Why do we have to hide behind our groups? Isn't our opinion as a thoughtful individual good enough?
1
Before we are "anything" of a social construct we are first human beings; we are a part of nature; most of us begin with a cry for survival.
1
Excellent point. This has become habitual. I don't know exactly when it started, but this expression sure is here now. It reminds me of the preface, "It's like". You can remove this from the beginning of almost any sentence today, other than an actual comparison of two or more "things".
4
I think this essay overstates its case. When I speak "as a," I am not claiming to represent anyone else, but rather briefly indicating a background and context for my statement.
To use one of Mr. Appiah's examples, a gay man who states his opposition to same-sex marriage is making a very different statement than a straight man who says the same thing. Identity isn't the only part of that statement, nor is it conclusive by itself, but it is an important part of that statement, and it's worth the 4 words it adds.
Mr. Appiah's essay itself means something different coming from a gay black man who is a professor of philosophy than it would if it came from, say, Sean Hannity. We should not assign more importance to identity than it deserves, but we should not assign less, either.
3
@Robert Stadler
We all understand why one would think that the identity of the speaker would matter. But the author's point is that gay people can differ on gay marriage, and I dare say that Mr Appiah and Mr Hannity might actually agree on this issue, so therefore one should only consider the strength of the argument itself.
When I read an opinion piece, I assume the writer's views are at least partially shaped by their life experiences. If a writer wants to opine on discrimination against women and minorities, I want to know if that writer is either. I agree that one person cannot speak for a whole group but they also cannot speak for a group that they are not a part of.
5
@Pat
Why do you need the author to identify with a particular group? Why do you assume author's are speaking for groups? In a comment above, a male described himself as a progressive feminist. He's obviously not a female, so are you saying he can't advocate for feminists positions; and if he does so, does that mean he's "speaking for a group" of which he is not a part? If you were a feminist (and female because according to you, he needs to be a part of that group) would you accept his advocacy, or would you box him in?
Speaking as me, I think identity politics is the most dangerous thing going on right now. It's dumbing down the conversation and dismissing what could be really good ideas. It's silly. Where do the identities stop? How specific does it need to be? Speaking of feminism, what boxes does someone need to check for you to take their opinions seriously? What about gay people? Black gay people? Mexican gay man with a disability? When does it end?
1
When the question of race arises on a form I print: Human. I know that's the species but think it would be more productive if the identities could join forces in order to combat all injustices people suffer in the US.
A coalition based on the Iroquois Confederacy in which each group would be represented and would determine policies to promote would be much more effective. Egos and judgements left at the door the goal being to unite in order for all to live a more productive, just and peaceful existence.
Of course that is what elected officials are supposed to do but that is passe.
There are 535 members of Congress, 1 President and 8 Supreme Court Justices. Mind boggling to think only 544 people have the power to determine the fate of 320,000,000 and have failed miserably when it comes to quality of life most people experience. I
It seems the word now mainstream, tribal, is another way to divide and conquer.
2
I believe the proper use of "as a" is to say "In my experience as a." This qualifies you as your own speaker and not the speaker for the group identified but we cannot simply ignore the concept of shared experiences. For example, as a human I know we all experience the human condition, which is to say imperfection, emotion, and awareness. I also know that we can all form our own opinion about the human condition. I think this distinction is more for the listener than the speaker though. We need to do a better job as a society in understanding that one's view, which may come from their experiences/identity, is very likely different from another with same experience or identity.
1
Inevitably, this line of thinking will not be used to support an empathetic, humanistic and pluralistic culture, but rather, will lead to a contrarian subjective relativism where no one can or has the right to understand one another. This was the great fear in the 90's of where post-modernism would take us.
OK. I like that, but why not expound on actually speaking (and THINKING!) for oneself. The converse of "as a" is not "I am". We need to value independent thought if we want to break free from a future that is dominated by what is essentially marketing, whether is be social or political.
11
I have recently reread MLK's I have a dream speech. The most telling quote I retained was
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"
We have probably gone too far in pursuing identity politics and need to refind our commonality as human beings and present ourselves stressing "the content of character" rather than our identity "as a." That being said we cannot forget to right the wrongs in our history for certain segments of our population - blacks, women, etc. Finding this balance between addressing the historical inequities of inequity, racism and sexism still active today yet act in accordance with the belief in the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals will help us overcome the growing tribalism and divisiveness that is tearing our nation apart and making worse those very wrongs we are hoping to resolve.
20
In social get together with friends, I have started urging that we stop using labels (left, right, red, blue, liberal, conservative, etc) in our discussions.
When talking about public issues that we think can have an important impact on our lives, I believe using facts and logic and being willing to learn from others is necessary for a society and nation to operate successfully and for the benefit of its members.
It is difficult, because people seem so wedded to their “team” memberships.
13
As a bipedal carbon based life form, I would like to talk about entropy, and the role it plays in overturning classical physics.
(too specific an identifier?)
3
I can't believe that it takes an opinion piece in the Times to explain this philosophy to liberals. It's what conservatives have been trying to tell them for generations. As a good Republican once said in the 60s (and I paraphrase): “I see the day when a person will be judged, not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character."
7
Oh John how foolish! First you speak as a Republican, violating the article’s point. Then you suggest ml King voted for Barry Goldwater. Time to get off the pipe!
@John https://thinkprogress.org/no-martin-luther-king-jr-was-not-a-republican-...
I remember when I studied the postmodernist (Foucault, Derrida, et al.) I used to think about the problem that if identities were a social construct to maintain the system of dominance (some authors explicitly said "exploitation" in a much more open Marxist development of the idea ), what would replace these identities in order to destroy the dominance? It turns out that dominance works in both ways, and the legalistic view of society in the United States tends to overlook this empirical fact.
If a persons identity is determined by society instead by himself, isn't this a form of oppression? Aren't we stripping from an individual his right to be, to pursuit his happiness, when we confine him in the jails of a forced identity?
2
Professor Appiah misses the point. Identity references by members of submerged groups are means of adding power and credibility to their statements by linking them to moral or structural critiques. Those persons are not going to forego those levers in the current milieu. Identity/privilege checking by whites is necessary to avoid their statements' being dismissed under the authority of those same critiques. And sometimes other whites are going to invoke identity in reaction to the assertions of power -- sometimes legitimately, otherwise not.
He is effectively asking for unilateral disarmament in the culture wars. Not likely.
5
Speaking only as myself--whatever I am--I do applaud Mr. Appiah's excellent analysis.
I always thought that the entire concept of identity--even apart from political discussion--is problematic and reductive. I suspect all of us have many, many identities and these are constantly influencing our behavioral responses in varying degrees depending on the situation at any given phenomenological moment. (This is is keeping with the ideas I've studied in psychology that it is highly misleading to speak of people as having a series of stable personality traits that guide them generally over a wide range of situations; it's more accurate to say they have many characteristics that they bring to play to greater or lesser degree in any given situation. In other words, behavior is more situational than "trait guided".)
It's hard to say "I am" with any sort of pithiness. We contain multitudes, and even identical twins start having different experiences the moment they're born.
What it means, in the end, is that we have to relate to each other as complex individuals who see themselves in varied ways from moment to moment.
And yes, this means we may have to fight against the cognitive tendency to categorize for the sake of simplicity, because dealing with complexity can feel overwhelming. But I think our mental capacities are expansive; our brains can take it. We don't have to reduce everyone to a series of signifying labels for the sake of convenience.
13
An essay marked by an intellectual rigor and mastery of language that many of the rest of us can only envy. I agree with other commenters that it conveys a much needed message in this day of social and political fragmentation.
The phenomenon Professor Appiah analyzes arises, in part, from the effects of evolution. In his book, "Thinking Fast and Slow," Daniel Kahneman argues that our tendency to judge new acquaintances quickly (a partial cause of the single-identity caricature) stems from the need of our distant ancestors to quickly determine if a stranger posed a threat. Additionally, the energy required to discover the complex identities of people we encounter assures that most of us will make the effort in only a relatively small number of cases.
A person's various identities, moreover, may not always matter that much if I don't know him personally. Who Donald Trump is seems less important than what he does. I know he pursues policies I consider detrimental to the welfare of this country and its people. Whether he acts out of sheer ignorance or from a malignant attitude toward women, African Americans and members of the lgbt community, strikes me as a secondary consideration. In either case, he remains unfit for the office he holds.
3
The overall point of this opinion piece is excellent and refreshing. Not stating any disagreement with it when I note that there are many possible hypothetical examples of someone presuming to represent an entire group in addition to "white guy" Joe.
5
Yesterday I was asked, in all sincerity, yet by someone who I suspect had already decided upon an answer, "I'm not getting on your case, but is there anything practical about philosophy." The work of Kwame Anthony Appiah answers this question, and demonstrates why the US needs more good philosophers.
45
@John Mullen - John, as one who whose eyes were opened to the life of if the mind in a philosophy class forty years ago, I recommend to anyone who asks such questions that they read the greatest 30 pages of philosophy I've ever read: Plato's Apology. There, Plato/Socrates gives us our freedom (if we will have it) in at least two ways: first, the freedom that comes from knowing (and admitting) that we are, and will go to our graves, deeply, widely, profoundly ignorant (such that we are truly free to learn without fear of looking ignorant), and second, the freedom that comes from knowing that "a philosophical life is a preparation for death." The relief and the freedom that comes from knowing and not forgetting these truths is one of the greatest practical advantages of philosophy.
1
Finally! Thank you for this rational approach.
Sadly in 3 weeks every college freshman will begin their 101 Humanities course where they will, implicitly and explicitly be told that their race determines the value of their perspective.
Let's hope someday we can return to objective reasoning.
89
@Arturo No, that won’t happen to all college freshmen or even a plurality. They’ll be more likely to meet swarms of other 18 year olds of startlingly different hues, cultures, linguistic idiosyncrasies, along with frosh far from the standard 18 year old box.
It will be exhilarating, fascinating, a little terrifying, and fun.
And, yes, they will begin learning to speak and listen in this milieu, respect the dignity and individuality of each and all and know their right to expect the same in return.
It’s higher education, after all.
2
@Arturo That will not be happening in my 6 classes. And objective critical reasoning is probably the most important concept I teach.
1
@Arturo That is simply not true.
As a 70 year old person, I have learned it is almost always an advantage to have multiple perspectives on board...and that most of us, individually, can see things through interchangeable lenses if we make the effort. False dichotomies, I have been taught, are dangerous things.
20
Idenitity is created by multiple forces, some of which can be rejected or moderated by the individual, some of which cannot. It's a construct heavily influenced by societal expectations, reflected in the madness of the media. And the media is often a fun-house mirror of distortion.
Trying to be true to one's idividuality--to think for oneself-- is a tough job these days. But more important than ever given the brainwashing effect of the constant media.
12
In my experience, the more I burden my individual perspectives with generalities of so-called identity (e.g., "white, Irish, Christian, husband, father," blah, blah, blah) the cloudier my perspectives become. Yes, of course, as social beings, humans identify with our various groups of belonging. But we also are singular instances of matter and consciousness, standing alone in time and space with a specific "thisness" that has never existed before and will never again reappear. Some of us are trying to see and understand the vast sparkling diamond of reality clearly through a tiny facet of the whole we are given. For me, the generalities mostly fog up my lens. I hope to deepen a curiosity about others' idiosyncratic views to expand my understanding. It's dismaying when they succumb to their own generalities. We all lose.
9
@James Sullivan
True enough. On our gravestones there's very little about identity except:
JOHN SMITH
1924-1995
HUSBAND - FATHER - GRANDFATHER
What matters is how we treat one another and our loved ones. The world would be a better place if Leviticus 19:18 were universally applied. (Leviticus? Or Numbers? Anyway.)
As a Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes supporter, I say thank you for this piece. One of the problems with the constant invocation of our ethnicity and gender is that as we’re focusing on it, the oligarchs are laughing, and happily fleecing us. I was surprised that the Times published this, because, despite all its great reporting on the dangers posed by our Apprentice Mussolini, its vision of America is that everyone gets a chance to run a hedge fund.
45
Speaking as someone who teaches a Listening Course, the art of communicating is speaking in a way that the person you are addressing is open to listening to you.
We are only qualified to speak for ourselves.
Fabulous essay! Thanks you.
12
To borrow from FDR: The only thing we have to stop identifying with is identity. The American Dream of doing better through work, competition, community involvement and standing up for yourself and your beliefs is the path to freedom and self betterment. Identity politics as it has flourished coming from Academia is mostly a Marxist class construct that is not useful for propelling our society forward. In fact, just the opposite. To the author of this open I say: Amen brother.
18
@AW
It's getting very tiring to correct people who worship at the altar of Jordan Peterson, but here we go: identity politics is pretty much the opposite of Marxist class analysis. I suggest reading Walter Benn Michaels' The Trouble with Diversity for starters. Also, it can be really enlightening to go to the sources rather than for the social media version of an intellectual.
3
@AW You missed the point. Perhaps reread the essay?
People do like to lead with what they've achieved or survived or suffer from.
For some reason, those who've received much privilege through genetic lottery or ancestral luck, claim the spotlight most comfortably with the confidence that (through grace), they know better, maybe even best.
Some are born with wounds, some have wounds thrust upon them, and thus find out by traversing the system they're in, gain most social traction by leading with their wound identities.
Yes, we each must speak for ourselves, not prefaced with an, "as a", but the need/desire to be recognized for our struggles or hardships or differences in a world that is ignoring us otherwise, is survival strategy.
3
As an xyz I seek to preface my remarks with a statement of my own self-image. It may be imprecise, it may be the same condition as many others with whom I disagree, it might even confuse since you may associate it differently than I, however, it is how I think of myself and I feel that my remarks, my position, my philosophy either is founded in that identity or else confounds the stereotype I think you might hold about it, or me.
As a lapsed Catholic, I confess two significant influences on my intellectual development and signal a framework from which my thinking originated. It might be different from others who see themselves in the same terms but I know my foundation is different from that of an observant Jew or an atheist. We three will all agree on many issues but you would be a poor observer if you could not tell us apart as we discussed them, because, yes, experience does inform opinion even if it is hard to convey that experience succinctly ... I just sometimes think it informative to let you know how I see myself.
17
Thank you for this essay. Can't tell you how much I get annoyed with people asking me about my name, where I grew up, where my parents and grandparents grew up, etc. Like, I'm just a person, an individual.
When I was studying about over 25 years ago in a Tudor and Stuart history class no less, I was expected to take questions about life in America. I was kid who lived a sheltered suburban life, who lived in the same house growing up, without much travel experience be expected to speak for the country. Was one of my cringe worthy experiences in life.
1
OK, I just had a long discussion over at the “Rational Republicans” Facebook page in which I made the deliberately provocative point that “identity politics” is not a real issue.
I’ve asked people now for 2 years - if you exclude college campuses, tell me ONE situation, just one, in real non-virtual life (that is, nothing you’ve read anywhere in the news media or social media) where “identity politics” was an issue.
I should add - excluding humanities graduate students or professors...
Nobody has been able to come up with one example.
I imagine if anybody responds to this comment, they will ignore the exceptions I listed above, citing dozens, or hundreds or thousands of examples (the recent controversy about the new hire at the Times who made anti-white statements).
Out here in the real world, people are working 2 or 3 jobs and still barely able to pay their mortgage and put food on the table.
Out here in the real world people are dying because they can’t afford the medications that would save their lives.
Out here in the real world college graduates are essentially debt slaves.
Out here in the real world, children are being killed because of similarly concocted nonsense such as “gun control is the first step toward complete totalitarianism”
Fortunately, the Democrats are getting wise to this. Perhaps they’ve started listening to George Lakoff and are refusing to buy into the cognitive frames of the Right.
November, vote as if your life depends on it.
It does.
32
@don salmon Identity politics come up often in my community of meditators here in NYC. Not sure if that supports or challenges your assumptions - but my world is real to me. :)
2
Anyone who employs the term “identity politics” whether intended or not, is a participant in the racist “dog-whistle” politics that the right has forced upon us.
1
@Corbin - Exactly.
Here's where identity politics begins:
Black people are lazy.
Women are not rational.
Gays are perverts.
Cripples are a waste of our country's resources.
"Illegals" means the people that "The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc."
Bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes, xenophobes, religious zealots have always used "identity politics". They don't call it that, of course. And they use it to advantage themselves over those who are somehow different by sex, by race, by sexual orientation, by religious beliefs.
What is so misleadingly dismissed as "identity politics" on the part of those on the left is in fact a reaction to this kind of discriminatory "identity politics" that has resulted in such things as a woman being paid less for doing the same work as a man, to black kids being relegated to schools that are separate but definitely not equal, to gay people being denied the right to marry and create a life with the person they love, to efforts to bar Muslim immigrants because of their religion or Mexican immigrants because they are--so our president claims--rapists, murderers, and drug traffickers.
This whole creation of the term "identity politics" is fundamentally Orwellian because what is called identity politics is about the fact that if you are black, a woman, gay, Mexican, you are fundamentally a human being and should be treated as such.
Speaking for myself, Dr. Kwame Appiah, can't wait to read your book, "The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity"!
5
Hallelujah, was that refreshing. But a white man-- kidding. Strong work, Mr. Appiah.
7
Speaking as a human being, I have to admit we're a pretty rotten species.
Dan Kravitz
11
Will the people who need to hear this message actually listen? I am not a fan of identity politics and believe we can make better headway for justice if we think of ourselves as humans first instead of races, sexual orientations, and genders. Yes, I have experienced gender discrimination, but the offensive thing about that is not necessarily how I’m treated “as a women,” but how I’m treated “as an invalid human being” because I’m a woman. That’s not my psychosis — it’s the discriminator’s. Identity politics grows from discrimination, so if we started treating each other like human beings that deserved dignity, regardless of our society’s constructed taxonomy, we might not cling to our “as a ____” so much. I know.... easier said than done.
313
@Marcia Eppich-Harris
Identity politics grows from the reality that there is only one human race species that began in Africa 300, 000 years ago. And that there are only two procreative human genders. Color as race is biological socioeconomic political educational demographic historical nonsense. Until the advent of DNA human paternity unlike human maternity was always in doubt.
@Marcia Eppich-Harris-Exactly Marcia, discrimination does exist, but identity politics can be just as bad as it.
Two of the biggest modern day examples of it were discrimination against blacks and women. Due to the great Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and the women's movement after that, discrimination in law and deed were greatly reduced.
Then came the perverters, the extreme liberals who put minorities like blacks and Spanish on decades of welfare in NYC and other cities and women who are crying me too instead of suing immediately that countless women did before them since 1980.
Don't get me wrong, always be vigilant re discrimination including minorities and females but don't hang an identity banner on it forever.
If you do that, you end up playing the card and hurt the group as much as the original discrimination.
1
@Marcia Eppich-Harris For similar reasons, many people have begun referring to "enslaved people" rather than"slaves" - to highlight the fact that slavery is something enforced on a person, not a person's identity.
Professor Appiah’s essay captures, in a cogent analysis, what I too frequently express only as a roll of my eyes or a sigh. Speak for yourself (only), I often think.
And yet, when I, a white middle-aged woman, travel with my young, black, son-in-law, the roles of social identities in our lives are excruciatingly evident. He is, by necessity, constantly aware of how strangers see him, and that is rarely as an individual. For all of the reasonable criticisms of identity politics, let’s not ignore that its fundamental foundation is the experience of discrimination in the world.
107
@JP
Right on!
Every body notices Stevie Wonder and Barack Obama's color aka race except Stevie Wonder.
@JP
No one is aware of how strangers see them. “They looked at me like....... “ Unless someone actually discriminates against another or engages verbally there is no way to know what is in their mind. The rest is your own imagination. It comes entirely from within.
1
@JP - You say "he is, by necessity, constantly aware of how strangers see him, and that is rarely as an individual." I don't doubt that racism exists, yet how EXACTLY do you know how every stranger sees your son in law, such that you can claim as a fact that they rarely see him as an individual? Even assuming you were to cross examine every stranger he meets, which you clearly can't, I submit that you could not possibly confirm this. Maybe some people are not thinking what you are sure you know they are thinking.
1
I agree with mr. Appiah, whom I consider and admire as a marvelous cultural critic. However, although no one can speak for just one group, to dismiss the honest voice of someone who is trying (and I underscore honest) do not move forward any conversation regarding race, sexism or discrimination. The Civil Rights movement was a complex alliance of multiple identities, each with their own solutions and discourse on how to be a black man or woman, latino or latina, and, eventually, all the in between. As mr. Appiah discusses, it was all about sensible policies and who listened. Nevertheless, if not rooted on group identity, changes on civil liberties would not have happened. More than to dismiss “as a”, anyone that claims an identity must be aware of the problematic nuances this may bring, but never to stop raising his/her/their voice when needed because he’s/she’s/they’re afraid to not be authorized to speak.
1
This article demonstrates the reasons for the divisions in our society. Instead of just listening to someone's opinion for what it's worth, the author encourages the readers to judge the worth of the opinion based upon the persons identification of his identity or by his appearance, something that the civil rights legislation of the 60 s was intended to stop along with attempting to achieve social equality for African Americans. Identity politics in this form of practice will continue to divide society.
Suggestion to the author, just listen to the opinion and leave out the classification of it by your "criteria".
3
@William Stuber That is the exact opposite of what the author is saying. You might want to read it again without an agenda.
7
Could you please cite an excerpt from the article that supports your criticism?
1
Well argued --- and incredibly fun read on a serious topic.
3
I am a minority. There is only one of me.
16
The difficulty lies not so much in the usage of "as a" to inflict verbal harm or establish bona fides for individuals, but in the dominant culture's insistence on not allowing people of distinct communities to be individuals. How often has an identified white person committed a mass murder here in the States and been seen as a single someone suffering from mental illness? But any violent incident by a person of color, primarily a Black man, immediately indicts ALL Black people. It becomes difficult to posit individually when you're singled out to defend the race. When and if all people in the States can see Black people for the widely varied humans they are and not as a single person (ask any Black person who is in a social setting where they are alone among white people how often someone asks if they haven't met before) will the "as a" modifier no longer serve.
12
@jlo
"...ask any Black person...alone among white people how often someone asks if they haven't met before..." insists that members of the Black community not allow people of a distinct community--white people here--to be individuals. To be clear--not all white people think all Black people look the same.
1
Here’s an example of identity politics at work. I sincerely believe this is in your head. Anyone who “immediately indicted all black people” about anything, would be deservedly crucified on social media, and wind up groveling in apologies trying to save their reputation and career.
As a straight white working class married Appalachian baby boomer with a PhD in engineering: this is one of the best op eds I've read in years.
56
Right on! “As a” straight white midwestern boomer ‘Michigan Man’ with an MBA from a well known Eastern b-school, I fully agree - a great Op-Ed.
It’s about time. Go Bucks!
2
In my opinion, people should really have fewer opinions.
As a person with only one life’s experiences (out of billions!), there are many, many things that I have no bursiness talking about.
I’m a lot happier when I say in conversation: “I don’t have an opinion about that, but I’d like to hear about your experience.”
The art (and joy) of listening!
68
Not fewer opinions, necessarily, but fewer expressed or unexamined ones!
1
@Ben
I'd like to be a believer in "judge not, lest ye be judged," but sometimes we must not let broad-mindedness result in our brains dribbling out from the sides.
I do judge people based on their behavior. The content of their characters cannot be seen except through their behavior.
If they seem oblivious to those around them, if they are coarse and profane, if they are easily angered and use their fists or knives or guns to relieve their anger, if they cheat or abuse others and laugh about it, then that is behavior worth judging.
That's my opinion.
I too which people would drop self association that comes with “as a”. I wish the political parties and our politicians would do the same. Case and point. The Trump proposal to combine path to Citizenship for 3 million aliens (democrat nirvana) while closing several immigration loopholes (Republican nirvana). It was a sensible compromise. The identification got in the way of pragmatic thinking.
2
A brilliant article; sadly, I think Professor Appiah will be ignored by the Democratic Party (of which I am a member), because today's Democratic Party is essentially a collection of single-identity groups, all claiming victimhood.
The most telling weakness of the professor's argument though is that it is too complex. It is easy (and lazy) to identify as a "one thing" he mentioned, as if that is the only personal characteristic that matters. If we recognise the full complexity and many parts of a person's identity, we have to actually listen to what the person is saying, and that is asking too much of too many people.
124
@Danny I agree that this can be a problem with Democrats, but don't fall into the narrative of thinking it's a problem *only* with Democrats. Many people will decry identity politics as a thing of the left, but it's also rampant on the right. People on the right are afraid of losing territory in society "as men" and "as white men" and "as white working class men" and "as white working class" and "as rural" and "as uneducated." They are often quick to label other groups and to pronounce their "as a" identity, too. I still can't tell my conservative family many things about me, basically identity labels (liberal, atheist, feminist). They would see me "as a" and that would be the end of it. I mostly keep quiet around them. Actually, I mostly avoid seeing them now.
@Danny
The Republican Party is the party of, by and for the white majority that voted 55%, 59 % and 58 % white Republican in the 2008, 2012 and 2016 Presidential elections.
Black people did not choose to come to America from Africa as enslaved property. Nor did they decide to be separate and unequal in America.
@Blackmamba. It is true that blacks did not choose to come to America as slaves; it is also irrelevant to this discussion, the whole point of which is that "blackness" is not the only thing that defines a black person, and depending on the circumstances, might not matter at all.
As an existentially neutered android sitting in an empty theater watching my life flash before my eyes, I think I might be offended by the implications, though I am admittedly quite uncertain.
What is ‘identity’ if not the “hidden entity”?
3
Superb writing and a timely message. Having the courage and sense of security in our own unique identities to speak for ourselves can help us break through our tendencies for groupthink and tribalist mentality. Rather than diminishing community and attachment, your message allows us to become comfortable and comforted by the idea that our own uniqueness and complexity in thought and deed is a source of strength and not weakness within our local community and society.
22
A humorous and welcome defense of rational discourse, the bedrock of democracy and civil society. Timely and needed. Thank you!
50
@JB123
I doubt that the families of Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, Mike Brown and Tamir Rice found any humor in this academic black -faced minstrel charade.
@Blackmamba
"Black-faced minstrel charade?" Do you mean a black man pretending to be a black man?
1
As a paying subscriber to the NY Times I approve of this brilliant article and I recommend everyone to read it.
89
This is both entertaining and appropriate for the moment. The “as a” identity construct is a declaration of unexamined privilege in almost all cases. “I privilege my statement” as a whatever. Thank you!
5
The idea - often expressed - that we need, say, ' more Hispanics on the Supreme Court', or 'more women in the Senate', or 'more Asians in the police', etc, etc .... has always seemed to me problematic for much the same reasons as Prof. Appiah expresses. Should it matter?
13
@Unconvinced
Yes, it does matter. Little girls should not have to grow up in a society where there are no women in positions of power for them to look up to. Little Black children likewise should be able to identify with people in positions of power. Etc. etc. etc. As long as there are positions of power in this country (Supreme Court, the police, the Senate), they should reflect the diversity of America. It's not a science, but there is something wrong with the Senate when it is less than 20% female. There was something profoundly wrong with the Supreme Court when there was not a single woman on it.
14
@Lily
Your comment is an example of the type of reductionism that Mr. Appiah warns against. There are many things wrong with the Senate, but none of the problems would be alleviated by the election of a right winger such as Marsha Blackburn (R Tennessee).
@Lily- does it matter how many individuals in each under-represented group are even interested in taking positions in the areas you mention? Or in college admissions, should it matter if 75% of applicants to a particular college one year are white and asian, but the acceptance rates have to hew to a pre-set racial balance wherein only 20% of the class will be Asian and, say 30% will be white? If there is exactly one Native American interested in running for the Senate, your formula would dispense with elections, and simply hand that person the job?
The problem with identity thinking is that is typically a precursor to claiming victim status. It would be refreshing to hear, "I am a ..... (fill in the blanks identity group) and I am so lucky and proud ..."
24
Its disheartening that it took this many words to explain the ad hominem fallacy.
What's even worse, is the possible vitriol that the author will get despite the many pleas within the piece to assure those who will be surely vexed that she understands them.
The ad hominem fallacy is especially pernicious, both in the standard personal attack and in the ever present ad hominem circumstantial attacks. It plays on our tendency to judge and dismiss at a cursory glance those we don't like or respect, rather than to only examine the arguments or statements they make dispassionately.
The author also gets the ball rolling in explaining some of the technical issues with intersectionality, but not some of its most biting criticisms.
Why, for example, is phenotype more important than general attractiveness? Is tall more important than sex, and is it the same for different sexes? Is the color of the eyes significant? We don't know, after adding about 6 categories to the analysis it becomes almost impossible to group people together meaningfully.
Its not as if a multivariate analysis will give you the exact determination of the variation here. Its all very difficult to quantify.
1
Mr. Appiah,
I admire your recognizing that the end game of identity politics is a war of all against all. What proponents of intersectionality fail to realize is that when they've finished splicing everybody down, they arrive at the individual: the bedrock upon which liberalism was founded.
82
I think that, as a speech act, ‘as a white man’ is somewhat different from, say, ‘as a Latina lesbian’. The former is more often, these days, an apology, an acknowledgement of privilege and a plea (deserved or not) nonetheless to be heard (white men don’t, as a general rule, say ‘as a white man…’). The latter asserts membership in a group, or, as you put it clearly: ‘as a member of this or that social group, I have experiences that lend my remarks special weight.’
The assertion of special weight is understandable but becomes problematic not only when the person speaking is asserting the right to be a spokesperson, but also when identity is used to suggest that the assertion is necessarily true and any challenge to is therefore illegitimate. (The unspoken assumption of the enthymeme is: ‘as an X, what I say is necessarily reliable and true’.) This rhetorical posture has become quite familiar these days, for example in discussions of cultural relativism.
58
Kudos on a great exploration. I feel the resorting to "as a" is a grasp for power - power to persuade by claiming affinity, identity, validity ("lived experience"), and sometimes defensive power, acknowledging privilege to lend humility, and thus gain sympathy, for an apologia.
And the grasp for supportive power is reflective of how easily we humans feel disempowered, insufficient, invalid, to just present ourselves as ourselves, vulnerable and strong and humble and wise all wrapped up in one, and rarely feeling all that comfortable in it. The human dilemma... angst and venture and wonder...
16
Thank you, Professor Appiah! We are so much more than the boxes we have created to try and understand ourselves and each other. There can also be a significant difference between the way others see me (based on my appearance, background etc) and the way I see and understand myself. Sometimes others put us in boxes based on a desire to understand for noble or ignoble purposes. Sometimes I attach to a particular identity to try and gain understanding, affiliation, or achievement. Who you think I am and who I think I am are often not the same. And, in any case, these identities are in constant flux - often depending upon situation and relationship. So much of what forms us often can't be seen. We are ultimately a mystery - never reducible to any one identity. We miss so much of the complexity of what it means to be human when we see primarily through the lens of identities.
33
@Sue
Agreed - how to uncloud our lens?
How curious that this essay ignores the primary function of "as a" in informal discussions: establishing the speaker's place in a hierarchy of privilege, which then establishes which ground rules apply.
One might say "as a woman of color" to establish that one is allowed to criticize, for example, white males in harsher terms than would be tolerated if the direction of the criticism was reversed, because one direction is "punching up" and the other is "punching down."
In other words, the "as a" is usually used to excuse one's racist or sexist statements on the basis of one's identification with underprivileged identity groups.
238
@Patrick
There should never be an excuse for racism or sexism, regardless from where it originates. We should all love each other, period.
To quote the great Tommy Wiseau: "If a lot of people love each other, the world would be better place to live!"
5
@Patrick
Thanks for the opinion.
The last paragraph is overly broad and a little too much I think.
"As a…" certainly isn't "usually" meant the way you imply.
Just not a logical assumption I think.
But, an easy one to profer - a wide, indiscriminate net for catching every fish.
And, a jumping off point for discussion.
Racism, sexism, ageism (get ready, that's coming)… all pernicious realities in every human heart to a degree.
But, so is genuine love and best human instincts and trying our best even in our fallibility.
So is understanding and forgiveness.
Let's harp on all that most often.
And see what might transpire.
1
@Patrick As someone who doesn't really read very closely, the author addresses your point head on.
"Typically, it’s an assertion of authority: As a member of this or that social group, I have experiences that lend my remarks special weight. The experiences, being representative of that group, might even qualify me to represent that group. Occasionally, the formula is an avowal of humility. It can be both at once.
It's a shame 84 other non-readers missed the point too.
What a great essay! And one that earns, rather than simply claims, authority.
267
@Martin
What a bunch of Kumbaya condescending paternalism and liberal feel good pity nonsense.
There is only one human race and two procreative human genders.
You can only speak for and within those two context as a diverse individual accountable person defined by biology, socioeconomics, politics and history. You do not select your own birth identity.
@Blackmamba
I have no idea what you think you're responding to in my post or in the essay.
1
I immediately distrust anyone who uses the phrase "what the American people want (are saying, need, etc.) is..." - it's hyperbole promoted as authority.
Yes, it's a very popular interjection used throughout the political spectrum - and a hallmark of those who prioritize rhetoric over discourse.
2